UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Some Admin Eyes Please?

A UESPWiki – Sua fonte de The Elder Scrolls desde 1995
Semi Protection
This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Some Admin Eyes Please?

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion_talk:The_Necromancer%27s_Amulet#Amulet_Leveling

Hope this is the appropriate place to draw attention to something like this, but could someone take a peek over here and perhaps throw some water on the fire? The random appearance of an unknown IP user is heating things up a bit. Arthmoor 08:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's time for the discussion to stop. I stopped bothering yesterday evening because it was obvious nobody was going to change anybody else's mind. The same is still true. rpeh •TCE 08:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but you're at least part of why I brought this issue to the Administration. I'd like an administrator to comment on it. The random IP guy has apparently decided to descend into personal attacks at this point. Arthmoor 08:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Youre the one who decided to turn this into a fight. If you had accepted the CONSENSUS that you are WRONG, this debate would have been over long ago. 94.228.219.141 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, the pair of you - stop this pointless bickering. If this continues, you'll both be in line for a warning. I'm not going to give the warning myself because I was involved in the argument even though I stopped, but somebody will. rpeh •TCE 08:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all appropriate to once again receive a threat from you on this issue when all I did on this page is try to bring it to an administrator's attention. I can't control what the other guy decides to do. I tried to make a contribution, and two people jumped down my throat about it, one of whom has resorted to blatant insults. This isn't the kind of thing that encourages people to want to contribute. It has exactly the opposite effect. If I'm to receive a warning for trying to argue a case, so be it, but that sends a very bad signal to others who might have observed the exchange. Arthmoor 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have never threatened you and I am not doing so now since I clearly said I would not be handing out warnings. I suggest you read the site's Blocking Policy and consider whether your contributions are currently constructive or disruptive. rpeh •TCE 10:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well since I've made plenty of other contributions and I haven't attempted to engage in a reversion war over the incident that caused this mess, I'd be inclined to say I'm not causing a disruption. I'd be more inclined to say your veiled threats are what's causing the disruption, and this other person's rather over the top hostility is causing disruption. Arthmoor 11:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody block this Arthmoor guy? I think everybody is getting bored with his continual harping on the same issue when he obviously knows nothing wiki policy. The way he keeps distorting what other people say should be considered a personal attack. 94.228.219.141 10:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
ok i read the whole thing and what i have to say is...arithamor(forgot your name) you have to be open to new ideas, even if your sure something is right, it could still be wrong, and unknown don't be so rude,you're never going to get to someone with a idea if your always shouting/being rude. i don't think either of you require a warning but you should both change your attitude,very much--GUM!!! 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Being open to new ideas is fine. But there is a big difference between that and being bullied into accepting that you're "wrong" when you don't believe you are. Since someone else has already commented in the discussion suggesting precisely what I already tried to do, is it safe to assume that edit could be done? I think we can all agree it's worthy of notice even if nobody can agree it's actually a bug. Arthmoor 11:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It may also be worth noting that wikipedia has the ip address 94.228.219.141 permablocked as its a proxy address registered to iloveprivacy.eu [[1]] Jadrax 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Which is why Robin Hood tagged the IP address as one that needs to be blocked, and why I then permanently blocked it -- I explicitly stated in the block reason that wikipedia confirmed the IP was an open proxy, because I had already looked at the wikipedia user talk page. --NepheleTalk 22:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah excellent. I should have realised it had already been dealt with! Jadrax 23:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)