User talk:MSTCrow/Archive 3

Welcome to my current sovereign talk page. Please do not edit or delete other people's posts. Disruptive or vandalistic posts will be removed. All posts left in objectively good faith will remain as a matter of record (I won't get into circular debates with users who believe that any speech possibly known to man is permissible, per AGF).

Remember to stay cool

Concerning this edit of yours, I'd like to remind you that threatening someone with a block in that tone of voice won't get things anywhere even if you did feel that his edits were a personal attack. I will also speak to Sdeodeo concerning his edits, but I ask that you assume good faith of one another and recognize that you both want to help people get through dispute resolution. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 23:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It clearly wasn't in good faith or following WP, so it certainly wasn't a case where there was a question of whether the other user was behaving in an ethical fashion or not. Some users just aren't on Wikipedia to contribute.

MSTCrow 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but looking at Sdeodeo's contribs, he has indeed contributed to Wikipedia and has mediated several medcab cases. While you and he may have not gotten along for some reason, going as far to say that he isn't here to build a Wikipedia isn't going to help. Perhaps it's best to just recognize that you two have had your differences and agree to leave eachother alone? Cowman109^Talk 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am purely defensive, if he ceases attacking and attempting to slander me on project pages, he would of course have nothing to worry about.

MSTCrow 00:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation recommendation

I see you jumped into Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-29 Schizophrenia to help mediate the issue there. As a friendly suggestion, you may want to clearly provoke a response by asking those involved a question - you can't expect them to know what to say, they need to be asked a question first such as whether they will accept you as a mediator or not :). Also I recommend using the talk page of the article in question to work things out so the issue is available to a wider audience. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators for some helpful information, and by all means don't be afraid to ask for help should any trouble arise. Thanks! Cowman109^Talk 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you need help, I am brainy when it comes to psychology. If I may be of assistance, do not hestitate to ask. Good luck. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 09:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Peppered Moth mediation

User:Michael Johnson has suggested ending the mediation. Do you agree? I haven't heard from you in quite a while. Rick Norwood 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What was the current status of the mediation? - MSTCrow 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I did not hear from you in quite a while, I closed the case. Rick Norwood 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

your opinion please

I'd appreciate your opinion on matters in the Discussion of article "Dissident Voice". Thank you. Ste4k 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism userbox

Thought you might be interested in the Template I have placed in my user area as per the [[Wikipedia:German

An automated message from Werdnabot

Hi there, I tried to archive your user talk page, but it seems that you have an error in your Werdnabot directive that prevented me from correctly archiving your User talk page. Please review this error, or contact Werdna648 for assistance. Werdnabot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C 09:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Check your Wiki settings

You might want to check your password and change it if necessary. Someone's been leaving bizarre messages in your name.--RattBoy 13:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are designed only to provoke, and will be ignored. - MSTCrow 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

¡I guess they weren't ignored, as you responded to them!

So you're admitting that the bizarre post was your edit, ¿yes? Well, then, pay attention: your attempts to intimidate me with threats will not work. You are not the owner of Wikipedia, and you have no power beyond that of a simple editor. As an editor, your interests will best be served in the long run if you use references and information as your tools, not baseless attacks and intimidation. Thank you for understanding.--RattBoy 22:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please be civil

Please don't tell lies by inference. At least try. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(rv - noooo, he's removing propaganda thinly disguised as sources) is uncivil behavior.

Nooo, it's an accurate description of what he was doing, as opposed to your inaccurate -- to be charitable -- description. But given the undisguised propaganda you keep trying to insert, not to mention the fake vandalism warnings and the fake civility notices, I'm not in any way inclined to be charitable, especially to one who insists on insulting my -- and everyone else's -- intelligence. Attempting to bully people using policies you neither understand nor follow yourself gets you zero slack from me. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil

Planting vandalism templates on experienced editors recommending them to use the sandbox and take a look at the welcome page to learn how to contribute is extremely rude. Please think twice before you use these templates on anybody. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

The standard progression in vandalism tags starts with that one. If you wish for the tag to be worded differently, that is not something I have control over. - MSTCrow 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you keep it up. I'm quite serious. Stop now before I block you. Especially never use the {{blatantvandal}} tag without really knowing what you're doing; it's intended for extreme or obscene vandalism, not for content disputes. Neither Calton nor Rattboy are vandals. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

You are mistaken. Calton has been blanking sections of NPR, which is a clear act of vandalism according to the rules. The rules state "vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia," as well as "it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with." Then it goes on to say "if you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the vandal's talk page using the system below. Check the page history after reverting to make sure you have removed all the vandalism; there may be multiple vandal edits, sometimes from several different IPs. Also, check the vandal's other contributions — you will often find more malicious edits." You may disagree with the current vandalism policy, but it is inappropriate to threaten other users with bans for not following the rules as you would like them to be. See WP:Vandalism - MSTCrow 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't even seem to have read the bits of the policy you quote; you seem to be picking sentences from WP:V at random. Don't wikilawyer with me if that's the best you can do. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

You are rude and insensible. I will not deal with any user who does not know what they are doing. - MSTCrow 01:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Man, the irony is just thick. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another rule you probably haven't read: WP:3RR. You're already unambiguously in violation of it on National Public Radio -- and no, your tendentious wikilawyering relying upon your misinterpretation of "vandalism" won't help you there. Now cut out the bully-boy tactics, because continuing them aren't going to get you anything but an inevitable exit from Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted twice, not three times. Anyone who looks at the history of the NPR article will see that "Bishonen" is either lying, or did not bother to actually investigate it for himself. The fact that he has to stoop to accuse me of "wikilawyering" for adhering to Wikipedia Policy shows that "Bishonen" has not ever read them, or that he chooses to openly disregard them. He charges others with "wikilawyering" to obscure that he doesn't pay any attention to WP at all. I will not deal with "Bishonen" any longer, as he is dishonest and unprincipled. If this is to continue, I request that another admin be brought in that is agreeable to all sides. - MSTCrow 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I've reverted twice, not three times. Counting, another of your strong suits:

• 1st - 20:43, July 23, 2006 r/v
• 2nd - 21:31, July 23, 2006 Reverted, Ideogram is blanking information, refer to talk page. Do not revert edit again, as this constitutes vandalism.
• 3rd - 00:59, July 24, 2006
• 4th - 01:38, July 24, 2006 r/v due to vandalism (blanking of section)

• I could reasonably throw in this edit, since you used it as an opportunity to slip back in an external link -- making 5 reverts -- but I've enough for proof of violations. And since you've made me go to all the trouble of compiling all this to refute your all-too-obvious lie, I'll just go and paste these into the 3RR report page. Honesty IS the best policy: this was simply a warning, but attempts at denial tells me I'd better escalate this. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like someone beat me to it. Too bad, so sad. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I came here to do the same thing as El C. Here are the reverts you made to National Public Radio within a few hours:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I'm sorry, but having studied the talkpage discussion I can't give any credence to your claims to be merely reverting vandalism. Bishonen | talk 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

ArbCom case

This is not going to work. What other steps in dispute resolution have you tried? Have you thought about a Request for Comment? Mediation? It's inappropriate to run to ArbCom immediately (the "previous attempts at dispute resolution" isn't very optional), and all that's likely to happen is a temporary block to get you to cool down. The edit summary you're using as your case on civility is fairly weak. I honestly would recommend that you ask an admin for help in withdrawing your request for arbitration, apologize to the users involved for moving too hastily through the dispute-resolution process, and then try again from the beginning, including considering walking away from the article you're locking horns over. Captainktainer * Talk 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MSTCrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

None given

Decline reason:

Quite clearly broke 3RR

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

reported by User:Ideogram (Result: 24 hrs)

Three revert rule violation on National Public Radio (edit|talk|links|history|logs). MSTCrow (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):

   * Previous version reverted to: [177]
   * 1st revert: [178]
   * 2nd revert: [179]
   * 3rd revert: [180]
   * 4th revert: [181]
   * 5th revert: [182]

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

   * [183]
   * second warning (removed by MSTCrow as "vandalism")

Time report made: 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

   * 24 hours. El_C 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are only two reverts present on the log, not 4. Ergo, the user was improperly blocked and should be unblocked.

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to edit my talk page. I want to be unblocked so I can kill my account. I've had too much trouble with people on here. Being a Wikipedia editor is like being a cop, you work with the worst. I'm tired of all the games and admin abuse, and I just want to leave now so I don't have to be a part of a failed enterprise. - MSTCrow 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be unblocked in order to leave. --Ideogram 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why wait? Leave now instead of doing the drama-queen act. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Being a Wikipedia editor is like being a cop, you work with the worst. No, it's like being a cop in that you have to follow and enforce the rules instead of making them up as you go along and trying to bully others with them. Actually, by your analogy that doesn't make you a cop, it makes you a jailhouse lawyer. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys? He's a blocked user confined to this page. Please don't taunt. Bishonen | talk 05:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

I assume that in deference to Wikipedia, Calton and Ideogram will be blocked for personal attacks. - MSTCrow 09:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack probation

You assume Calton and Ideogram will be blocked for personal attacks? Man. The only reason you're not blocked with bells on for making personal attacks is that I'm unusually reluctant to block for that reason--I'm kind of known for it. That reminds me: I'm putting you on personal attack probation. That's general PR probation, meaning you will be blocked if you make any egregious personal attacks. It's also a specific warning with reference to your "vandalism" accusations. Calling somebody a vandal is a serious accusation, and doing it groundlessly is a serious personal attack. You do that for instance here: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Good faith edits are not vandalism. Editors and administrators contacting you on your page are not thereby vandalising it. Calton is not a vandal. Ideogram is not a vandal. Rattboy is not a vandal. I'm not a vandal. Don't accuse anybody of vandalism again unless you catch them vandalising something. When in doubt, don't use the word. Please refer to WP:VAND, an official policy page, for what vandalism is. Note especially the section "what vandalism is not": "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia." Bishonen | talk 10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

They weren't in good faith, and were clearly vandalism, no doubt about it. You are playing favorites with your admin powers, and have way too much time on your hands. In any case, it's not all that relevant, as I'm leaving as soon as I can tag my page. - MSTCrow 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. But in case you should change your mind, I'm changing my probation terms: since you don't know what vandalism is but love the sound of it in your mouth, don't accuse anybody of it again under any circumstances. Nonsense like that damages the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

What tag? Please allow me to assist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is pissed about admins ignoring policy.

- MSTCrow 08:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The missing chunks

Hey, MSTCrow, I see you have had a few chunks taken out of you lately. You've been around for a while and I'm just new, but I know how bad that can hurt from my real life. We have a mutual friend, Vision Thing, who has asked me to look in on you and ask you to please not leave. And that is what I am sincerely asking you. I haven't been bitten the way you have by admins and others, but I have been threatened. I believe, like you, in keeping my integrity in the face of opposition and bullying and I respect that you it do it so well. Please don't leave Wikipedia. We need you here. It's not about politics to me. Our politics may not be exactly the same. It's about writing a neutral and excellent encyclopedia and if it is difficult to do so because of the bias and wrongful, bullying push of others, then it is so important for brave people like you to stay. In freedom, Shannon^{duck talk} 01:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. I'll stay. Wikipedia must be defended against those blinded by partisan hatred and all too willing to lie and flaunt Wikipedia Policy to further their own bias and POV to the exclusion of intellectual diversity. Bishonen is an abusive and dishonest administrator, and users such as Ideogram and Calton are relentless in their stalking and instigatory behavior, but ill-will and bad faith should never be accepted or given into, but defended against even when the odds are against those of us in the right. I appreciate the fact that you support the integrity and good-faith that Wikipedia is based upon, and are able to look objectively view Wikipedia from a non-partisan standpoint. Due to the design flaws in Wikipedia, we may never win the war against dishonesty, abuse of power, and hostility, but unless we try, they will win and succeed in turning Wikipedia into a wasteland devoid of any independent thought, criticism, or authority, and all of our efforts will have been wasted on what will have become a political hate-machine, the domain of a small clique of users. - MSTCrow 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, MSTCrow, thanks for what you just said. You said a mouthful! One thing you said, though, the domain of a small clique of users..I don't think it's a small clique of users. It's damned big as I see it. If you ever feel like it, send me an email. My email address is on my page. Also, please check out this horrible, insane article patriotism in freedom, Shannon^{duck talk} 08:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I try to be an optimist. I hope that it is just a large number of abusive users in subjective terms, but as a share of all users of Wikipedia, is a small one. - MSTCrow 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

Done. I can now say that in some way I have been related to PARC. Uber-goodness. - MSTCrow 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

patriotism

This whole section is anti-American propaganda.. Patriotism#Types_of_patriotism. The definition or description of patriotism is not what I would call patriotism. If you're happy with the article than okay. I'm not. Shannon^{duck talk} 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to disengage

This edit is inappropriate. Calton was toeing the line but did not violate WP:CIVIL, especially considering the amount of provocation you've leveled against this user. I'm going to remind you that placing unwarranted warning templates - especially when made in bad faith - can get you in hot water. Captainktainer * Talk 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think it is dishonest to accuse anyone else of provocation. Do not threaten people simply because they are placing warranted warning templates on abusive user's talk pages. I don't want to get in a silly edit war about this, so just play by the rules, ok? Thanks. - MSTCrow 02:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading the above, all I can say is Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle is on Line 3 with a message for you: he says you're black. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged warning

t sms t m tht y r ctng n n ncvl mnnr. Pls rmn cvl nd dn't rsrt t mkng prsnl ttcks r nstgt dt wrs. Pr yr dts

Well, all I can say to that is it's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cease and desist from leaving nonsense of my talk page

I never started. You, on the other hand have been warned -- more than once -- about leaving nonsense on mine. For most people, this would be a clue. For you, I suspect, not so much.

Tell you what, if tyour so-called warnings are sincere, I invite you to report me to an admin or any series of admins you can find: let's see how valid THEY find them. Prediction: you already know what the result will be. Again, for most people this would be a clue. For you, again, I suspect, not so much--Calton | Talk 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

the endless pursuit of article domination

Hey. Just dropped by and noticed the crap is still falling from the sky onto your page. Yikes! Best wear a triple layer raincoat. Shannon^{duck talk} 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just ignoring Calton, I'm fairly certain he's going to be banned or blocked soon. I can't imagine I'm the only person he's been a problem for. - MSTCrow 05:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello. I have warned you against abusing warning templates, against making further personal attacks, and most specifically against accusing good-fath users of vandalism. I see you have since then been doing all three on Calton's page. You have been blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

{unblock} Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Bishonen for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Persistent personal attacks and abuse of warning templates after several explicit warnings.

Your IP address is 66.55.217.228.

I believe that this block should be removed for the following reasons:

1. There has been no abuse of warning templates, only appropriate use of warning templates due to Calton's name-calling and insults. Calton has also vandalized user's edits on his own talk page, which is against Wikipedia Policy.
2. I have not made any personal attacks against Calton. Instead, I have attempted to ignore his taunting and insults on my user talk page.
3. The block comes after I publicly stated I would ignore Calton's provocations, and well after I had discontinued use of Calton's talk page.
4. I have not accused Calton of vandalism since Bishonen's threat, and reviewing either my own talk page or Calton's, it is clear that Calton is not a good-faith user, but has instead sought to provoke and belittle other users, leaving disparaging remarks on their talk pages and his own.
5. Bishonen does not even attempt to provide any evidence of her charges, and I believe the block to be out of process due to the reasons mentioned above. - MSTCrow 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed your unblock request; your block is expired at this point. Mangojuice^talk 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak about that with regards to myself. It's quite possible others glanced at the situation and decided it was too complicated to investigate. I saw your username up before, but I was going through in random order, and didn't pick yours until a bit later. Other requests can take a while to investigate and respond to. Mangojuice^talk 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New Boston, New Hampshire Vandalism

[14] has a bit of vandalism on it regarding purple backpacks and anal sex toys. As I can't currently fix it, can someone else get to it? Thanks. - MSTCrow 21:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. - MSTCrow 16:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

abusive admins in Wikipedia

Hi, MStCrow. I'm sorry to see you got blocked unfairly. The admin that blocked you, Bishonen, came onto my page and said some strange, incomprehensible things. Then another admin accused me of being a sockpuuppet of a banned user at a rfa that I opposed. This place gets so darned peculiar at times I feel like Alice in Wonderland talking to the Cheschire Cat. Well, just dropped by to say, hey, and I hope you are okay. Shannon^{duck talk} 01:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I hope Bishonen doesn't decide to victimize you too (again), but I wouldn't count on it. I suspect the block will run out on its own, as people are either afraid to cross her, they've tried to remove the block but Bishonen is causing problems, or they just aren't paying attention. Which should be in 26 minutes. - MSTCrow 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still blocked. Something or someone is not playing by the rules. - MSTCrow 10:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there we go, the block expired. Don't know if it's a glitch in Wikipedia or something else, but that needs to be fixed. - MSTCrow 16:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

From your e-mail

Are you trying to be banned, or are you just naive?

Uh huh. Let's see:

• Number of times you've been blocked since March (5 months): 5
• Number of times I've been blocked since November 2004 (20 months): 0

So who's the one compiling the track record on the road to banishment? Don't insult my intelligence.

Oh, and speaking of naive, I'd like to point out that your big supporter above, Lingeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been permanently blocked as an abusive sockpuppet of a previously permabanned user. Good choice of friends, there. --Calton | Talk 22:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1: She isn't a sockpuppet, and no one has proved that she is.

Checkuser says otherwise, if you didn't know. No, wait, you do. Lying about what you've already been informed of, Lie #1

2: I've been blocked twice, not five times, and both times the blocks were vindictive and not based on fact, which you should know, as you're the one that lobbied for them due to others calling you on your bad behavior.

I lobbied for nothing and due to others calling you on your bad behavior isn't even coherent, but let's look at counting; again not your strong suit:

• #1:　09:20, July 27, 2006 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Persistent personal attacks and abuse of warning templates after several explicit warnings.)
• #2:　 02:14, July 24, 2006 El C (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
• #3:　02:46, April 28, 2006 InShaneee (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (further personal attacks while blocked)
• #4:　 01:17, April 27, 2006 InShaneee (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (personal attacks)
• #5:　 00:10, March 5, 2006 InShaneee (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks)

Vocabulary lesson: "twice" =/= "5". Lie #2.

3: At some point, you will lose the protection of a corrupt admin, and punished for being such a nuisance to other users while contributing zero yourself.

See the comparative track record above. Also, calling an admin "corrupt" based on nothing but your own spite is hastening your own exit and no one else's.

4: Stop flamebaiting other users, the talk pages are not so you can pester them until they slap you with a warning, as which point you run home to whine to a sympathetic admin, who then attacks your victim.

SO many falsehoods in one sentence, not to mention the hypocrisy (sending me e-mail with Are you trying to be banned, or are you just naive? is intended as an olive branch, hmmm?). Let's just do the objective one: YOU began pestering me with your bogus warnings -- which an admin, completely unsolicited by me, removed. The phrase, "The pot calling the kettle black" comes to mind, not to mention "psychological projection". Lie #3, by the way.

5: You have a high opinion of your level of intelligence. - MSTCrow 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparatively speaking, yes. You watch Fox News, don't you?

It's pretty clear that you're on the Road to Eternal Banishment, like so many others, and like every single one of them, I -- and all the other good editors -- didn't have a damned thing to do with their fates -- nor will anyone else with yours. You see, lots of bad actors who have raged at me and anyone who crosses them have come and gone, and every one of them is gone because they self-destructed, with no help from anyone else. Blaming other people for their opinions of you is old hat -- as is ginning up reasons why it's everyone else's fault but your own. Been there, done that, have a closet full of t-shirts.

To recap: you've been blocked 5 times, you've been warned by multiple admins, you've lied -- objectively lied -- more than once, and you continue to insist it's everyone else's fault but yours: it's not me on the path to an indefinite block, it's you. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm responding directly to your (bogus) claims -- or is your nonsense about "deleting warnings is vandalism!" only apply to others? Editing inconvenient replies to make it look like your claims have gone unanswered is intellectually dishonest -- but I suspect you know that already. Don't like the answers? Don't ask the questions. --Calton | Talk 02:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to make a big fuss on my talk page, do not mutilate my post in the process. This isn't e-mail. Instead, leave your post completely below the current one.

I'm responding directly to your points, you ninny. The only person making a "big fuss" is you. And how I choose to refute your bogosity is my business. But as long as you think issuing orders is kosher, I have a few of my own: I've had enough of you, so stay off of my talk page and stop sending me e-mail.

P.S.: I see from the post below that you've been blocked again. This is the first I've heard of it, but I can't say I'm surprised. Take the time to reflect on its meaning -- which is neither "everyone's out to get me" nor "if I make just the right legal argument I'll win".

Like I said, it looks to me like you're showing every sign of heading down the same path to the same end I've seen so often before, of being indefinitely banned by ArbCom or the community. Put that's just a prediction based on a pattern: the actuality is entirely in your hands and no one else's. Figure that out, and then what seems inevitable to me won't actually happen. --Calton | Talk 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Calton has engaged in more personal attacks, and continued to vandalize my talk page. - MSTCrow 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again, a week this time

You have again ignored my several warnings by continuing to make personal attacks, specifically nonsense accusations of vandalism which you were specifically warned against.[15] My warnings here and here were serious, as the 48-hour block they have already rendered you should have told you. You have now been blocked for a week. Please spend some of the time familiarizing yourself with the block warnings I link to in this message. The warnings will remain in force during and after the current block. Note that I'm not blocking you for your egregious attacks against myself ("he ran off to Bishonen, who then blocked me. Certainly, Bishonen has a reputation for being an abusive and corrupt administrator who lacks objectivity, so this turn of events should not be surprising"[16]). I don't do that. But I note them here for the benefit of any other admins reviewing the unblock request which I expect you to post. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC).

Again, you are lying through your teeth and I am sick of your vindictive behavior. I have not been making personal attacks, have been trying my best to ignore Calton's abuse, as he has been ripping up and reassembling posts on my talk page, even after being told not to do so and I told him to go away, and I have not made any attacks against you, you are simply pulling up random history that has been heavily revised and changed. You are blocking any user that complains against Calton's abusive behavior. If other admins want to look into Calton's behavior, it is not under your authority to block those who bring such information to their attention. You have never attempted to be objective or balanced in this matter, and are using your power to crush legitmate concerns. I most certainly will add an unblock request, as you have continued your abuse of power and are wikilawyering as this point to justify it. - MSTCrow 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MSTCrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See below

Decline reason:

Too many personal attacks from this account - enough that a week-long block is lenient (a permanent block is justifiable). Suggest you use this time productively to examine why your editing and interaction with others caused you to be blocked and to think of ways to avoid such an experience when you return. We look forward to having you back in a week, making productive edits and not attacking fellow editors. --➨ ЯEDVERS 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Bishonen for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Resumed personal attacks, specifically false vandalism accusations, after many warnings and on returning from a 48-hour block for the same thing.

Your IP address is 66.55.217.228.

Reason for Unblock Request Calton has interefered with http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk_page_protected, and according to the criteria put forth by Lar, he should be immediately banned for vandalizing warnings on his talk page from both myself and Will_Beback. I simply pointed this out to Lar, and again, Bishonen blocked me, despite the fact that Calton has made repeated personal attacks against me on my talk page, and I have completely been ignoring him as best as I can, and have not interacted with him on his own talk page in many days. In addition to this, Bishonen has dug up edits that were revised as to better fit WP. It is inappropriate to dig up old data that has been fixed. Yes, I made an attack on Bishonen, but I quickly removed it in good faith. As can be seen from my edit log, I have continued to make useful edits and help to mediate cases, and have avoided directly interacting with Calton, and he has continued to provoke me on my talk page. To summarize, I have not made any personal attacks whatsoever, as stating that a user has vandalized warnings on their talk page does not constitute personal attacks, Calton has made personal attacks against myself (he has been the sole problem here, I have not been accused of personal attacks on any other user), as he has been reprimanded for on his own talk page by another user, and that I have received zero warnings since the past block against any perceived personal attacks against any other users. Openly criticizing a user's bad behavior is not grounds for a block. - MSTCrow 19:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bishonen's Talk Page Thread on Myself

Recently, some users have been making claims against me at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#MSTCrow. As I cannot reply there, I will make my public responses to the charges here:

1. Bishonen accuses me of being a sockpuppet. My IP address is 66.55.217.228, which is not close at all to the range of TheWolfStar's IP address, not on the RoadRunner network, and geographically distant. A check on the IP at samspade.org will immediately show it is out of New England, not the Mid-Atlantic.
2. Bishonen accuses me of supporting maggie's edits. I have never seen any of maggie's (TheWolfStar's) edits. I also have not defended Lingeron's edits, or pass any judgement on them whatsoever. My concern was solely with what I saw as an abusive, out of process ban of Lingeron, and then protection of her talk page. Bishonen is attempting to indict me purely on guilt by assocation for objecting to what I saw as an administrative abuse of power, for which I would offer my voice in defense of any user similarly aggrieved.
3. Geogre accuses me of being a "reincarnated" troll. I obviously disagree with his belief that I'm a troll, but regardless, my first edit on Wikipedia was on April 23, 2004. Over two years ago. I am not a reincarnated anything, and this is more proof I am not a sock.

My record will show I have had limited difficulty on Wikpidia until recently with Calton, Bishonen, and now Geogre, and they are clearly not acting in good faith against me, as a simple glance at my talk page will show my IP, and a simple glance at my contributions will show I am an old user. They have not bothered to perform due diligance. - MSTCrow 21:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, you'll say anything, won't you? You should link to where I supposedly "accuse" you of being a sock, so people can see what I actually say. But I don't blame you for being reluctant to. You have been blocked for abuse and personal attacks and for ignoring specific warnings, and for learning nothing from your 48-hour block. Not for being a sock. On a balance, I don't believe you are a version of Maggie. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC).

Link to where you accuse me of being a sock? Of course. I shall quote you from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#MSTCrow: "I see certain reasons to suspect MSTCrow of being yet another maggie sock." You aren't afraid of openly lying to others because you are an administrator, are you? I've learned from your repeated abusive blocks that those in power often freely misuse it. - MSTCrow 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Suspect", "accuse" -- no distinction for you? Interesting. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't Clue, grapes. The fact of the matter is, Bishonen didn't bother to compare my IP, which is right here on the same page, with TheWolfStar's, before deciding I might be a WolfStar sock, so she's either willfully malacious, or incompetent as an administator, with little regard to the damage her mistakes leave on other users. - MSTCrow 22:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm protecting your talk page so you can't damage you reputation further with these attacks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be abusive, and you know it. You have no concern for my reputation, and you are attempting to crush dissent against abusive administrators. I suggest you leave me alone to prevent any further problems. This is an issue between me and Bishonen, not with you. I will be ignoring you, grapes, as I don't think you're acting in good faith here. - MSTCrow 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: email

Yes, I did check your edits and editing pattern. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal from the Mediation Cabal

Hello, there. I have been looking over the recent issues you've been having involving personal attacks, and I feel that due to the swarm of conflict about you at the moment it would be best if you became more familiar with policy before being a member of the Mediation Cabal. When we have potential mediators who have been recently blocked for not understanding WP:3RR and WP:NPA, that could cause many problems in mediation cases. No hard feelings, but I'm going to have to remove you from the member list of the Mediation Cabal until this mess clears up due to concerns brought up by others. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am quite familiar with policy, more so than the admins I've been having difficulty with. Not understanding policy isn't a problem on my side. - MSTCrow 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, nonetheless, I feel that it would be best for the Medcab that we don't have users who are recently blocked for matters (especially the three revert rule, since that is an important concept when dealing with content disputes). Once again, no hard feelings, it's just that there are many concerns brought up by others and I felt I needed to do this. Cowman109^Talk 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok, but this kind of bureaucratic nonsense is why Wikipedia is falling apart at the seams. It's unfortunate that the bureaucracy is so large that you can't take the time to ferret out administrative abuses. By removing anyone that has had a run in with abusive users from the cabal, you are only increasing their power. I expected better of you, Cowman109, that a user such as yourself that is familar with mediation issues would bother to give the same courtesy to those that had helped him. I am personally disappointed in your lack of character. - MSTCrow 03:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

An automated message from Werdnabot

Hi there, I tried to archive your user talk page, but it seems that you have an error in your Werdnabot directive that prevented me from correctly archiving your User talk page. Please review this error, or contact Werdna for assistance. Werdnabot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C 10:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

An automated message from Werdnabot

Hi there, I tried to archive your user talk page, but it seems that you have an error in your Werdnabot directive that prevented me from correctly archiving your User talk page. Please review this error, or contact Werdna for assistance. Werdnabot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)