User talk:Scarian/Archive 15

Stale?!
I don't understand your action on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Fovean_Author_reported_by_User:Bobblehead_.28Result:_Stale._.29

You marked it "Stale", but it solely concerns edits within the last 24 hours (I posted it, User:Bobblehead modified it a bit). Were you confused by the fact that I noted some older diffs of similar behavior by User:Fovean Author in the report? Maybe I shouldn't have listed those, but the edits making up the 3RR violation all occurred today. LotLE × talk 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Bobblehead had actually posted a report before I did, but I hadn't noticed that fact when I made my report. Bobblehead removed my report heading, but incorporated the additional material from my report into his/hers (all of which seems fine and proper). In any case, both reports were filed in the last 8 hours, and both concern the same edits made today. LotLE × talk 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, am confused by your action here. This, too was not stale. I did not contact you earlier as I did not wish to antagonize the editor in question, and I want to make it clear I'm not asking you to go back and block that editor. But I think one of us has a misunderstanding of 3rr reports, and if it's me I'd like to know. Thanks. IronDuke  21:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As another admin who patrols the board, I also must disagree with this. 3-4 hours is not nearly long enough to assume an edit war is over and in no need of action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I come off as rough, by the way. That's not my intention, as I do know from experience that patrolling that board can be a pain and is completely thankless work. Thanks for keeping it up as much as you have, and like I said, I'll see if I can help out more and thus lighten the load a bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I've been less active at 3RR lately, I used to close numerous issues there. I believe that the board has a role to play in longer-running disputes. I would tend to mark something as stale if it seems like it is no longer a live dispute, and is merely historical. When you see a case where nobody has reverted in several hours it may be not at all resolved, and may not be getting any better. It often happens that posting the issue at 3RR will cause the participants to stop temporarily. (That's not a sign that the problem is truly solved). It appears that sometimes they are looking for admin participation as a kind of 'Third Opinion' to see who is right. Of course admins usually don't have much knowledge of what's really going on but they can tell if one person is being very unreasonable. This kind of a verdict I believe is useful even if it is delayed a day or two after the original report. So a 4-hour window sounds way too short to me;  I'd vote for two days.  EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for revision fo 3RR status
Hi I see that you have commented on my supposed 3RR violation

If you look colsely none of the reverts pointed to are done by me. Secondly the reverts shown are incorrect. Instead of showing the reverts I had done to Eios1234 and his suspected sockpuppet Suspected_sock_puppets/Eios1234, User:68.110.238.158 Eios1234 has deliberately tried to mislead admins by showing revisions to Special:Contributions/59.103.26.30 which I havent done at all. This has 19 intermediate edits which is not correct. I request you to change the status of my 3RRnomination from Satle to "Dismissed"(or incorrect, whatever is the term) as the Nomination is incorrect. Thanks

PS: I am well aware of the 3RR rules--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Marksell
In case he comes recruiting again. He's reverted me 3 times in 24 hours. My edits were minor word-tweaks for neutrality, and removal of a sentence. No "large chunks." If you are inclined to intervene, please discuss with admin User_talk:Henrik first. He's making a concerted effort to define a neutral role for himself. Thanks. Life.temp (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Thanks for the heads up. What I was more referencing was the report I had filed, which you also marked stale even though it had only been a few hours since the last revert. I am not, however, asking you to go and block that particular editor. For me, this has mainly been about clarifying what the policy is/should be, and I think it's been a productive discussion -- thanks for your prompt and reasonable replies. IronDuke 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann block
Scarian, yes Dbachmann violated the 3rr. He knows the rule, and you can probably be sure he didn't violate it on purpose. Dbachmann does a very stressful and difficult job, dealing with a large proportion of wikipedia's most troublesome tendentious POV-pushers, and for the sake of the greater wikipedia cause, should be given a break. The offense indeed merits and block but isn't worth the block; but now that it's done can you unblock him or at least change the log to time served? As you said to my stance on Enigmaman's misuse of rollback, following all the rules can be hindering so WP:IAR. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairness
In all fairness, I reported a user for violating the 3RR and you banned me for personal attacks. While I won't get into how I know, he is impersonating a Marine. Beyond that, he DID violate the 3RR and he continues to revert despite the fact that two users other than myself have reverted his additions. If I get banned for personal attacks and he doesn't get banned for 3RR, sock puppetry, and edit warring, what message is that sending? Could you please go to the revision history on Remington 870 and take some action. I've warned him twice and another editor warned him once. I got banned with NO warnings, I think it's only fair. Thanks for your time. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Hunger
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. Check the diff times. I made an edit at 1301, Daniel put up the warning at 1303 so there is no question of me "ignoring warnings". I was simultaneously putting up the notice on the 3rr noticeboard and was talking on Danie's chat page at 1305. Look at user Daniel's discussion page. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, user Domer48 was also reverting another user's edits, not just mine. Please check with user Daniel what he thought was happening as you seem to have misinterpreted the events.  Wotapalaver (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
Hi, thank you for the warning note, I am always cautious not to break the rules. Still, I was engaged in this because user Boodlesthecat has been removing valid, sourced information and this behavior cannot be accepted. I have a question. User:M0RD00R was engaged in edit war with me, I have warned him about vandalism three times on his talk page, and he has removed all warnings. Is this acceptable? Greetings. Tymek (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see my name is beeing mentioned again behind my back, so I have another question: edit summaries "keep your POV to yourself", calling me vandal , edits like "I will not accept so-called advice from extreme left-wing, anti-Polish POV-pusher as you. Cheers. BTW Nigdy Wiecej is not associated with Never Again International, read a little before you write lies , "You are left-wing, aren't you? You are an anti-Polish POV pusher, aren't you? Since when writing truth has become a personal attack?" , or user space harrasement titled "A note to a vandal" , and then repeated insertion of bogus warning ,  is it acceptable behavior here in wiki. I've asked Tymek to stop personal attacks and incivility against me multiple times but this seems to never end. So what do You as uninvolved user think? aren't diffs provided by me in breach with WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and if they are what can be done about it. Thank's a lot. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User Mordoor exercises unacceptable behavior, he deletes sourced information, just because it contradicts his anti-Polish POV (look here, here ] and here ) and he calls my sourced edits vandalism (sic!). He has started edit war and then issued me a baseless warning, with a hidden threat (my patience waiting for you to modify you behavior is running low). He frequently engages in edit wars , removing “IDONTLIKEIT” information. Creating a comprehensive encyclopedia is impossible with persons who are clearly here because they have axes to grind and who seem to savor calling other editors vandals. Hope that his actions are unacceptable to you as well. Tymek (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Again I'm beeing slandered "he deletes sourced information, just because it contradicts his anti-Polish POV". I do not know if I should respond to this. BTW what is the word that is used to describe edits when almost half of the article is blanked for no aparent reason time, and time again ? Rhetoric question. M0RD00R (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake, not intended. happens to everybody. Tymek (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe blanking half of the article THREE TIMES in a row is a mistake. That may be. But continuous ad hominem remarks You are making here yet again after being asked to stop is not a mistake. Sorry Scarian for spamming Your talk, but I don't think this discussion belongs here anymore. M0RD00R (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when edit war warning, presented as a proof by you, has became a personal attack? And please explain why you keep on deleting sourced information, calling it vandalism? Anyway, Scarian has had enough of us, EOT. Tymek (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was explained to You multiple times, that not every information "that is sourced", belongs in Wiki. We have policy called WP:RS. Only reliable sources can be used. And if You do not get why statements like " he deletes sourced information, just because it contradicts his anti-Polish POV " are incivil, and keep slandering me time and time again I really do not know what can I do. You've been asked to follow WP:CIV, WP:AGF, now I don't know how many times, and still there is no result. You keep repeating this slander on every occasion. This behavior really must stop. M0RD00R (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Isaiah Friedman, Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897-1918, Oxford University Press 1977 is not a reliable source? I am apologizing to Scarian, this is my last message here. Tymek (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not take chunks of content disputes out of context, there are dedicated discussions that go on relevant talk pages. P.S. I had rather these sources added by you in mind. Nationalist portals and websites by Holocaust denial organizations are not reliable sources. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuous incivility reported here ,

Sorry for all this spam at Your talk once again. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How to Pass and RfA
Hi Scarian, I know you apologized for your outbreak against Irpen, but I would encourage you to take a look at my essay User:Balloonman/How_to_pass_an_RfA. Please pay special attention to the sections on "Things that Kill and RfA and "During the RfA." I mention this because your vigorous defense of Engima can be doing more damage than help.Balloonman (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or this addition to my essay on how to nominate a candidate for RfABalloonman (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes please Scarian - stay calm, leave your initial (well written) nomination as your point of focus for others to reflect upon. Talk to me about any issue that you might have with any further comments - I will assist where it appears best to do so.-- VS  talk 23:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your latest - very well said my friend.-- VS talk 23:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pat
Hope you are well. Just wanted to say I thought Warrington was a nice little town (for the 3 hours that I spent there). Shoreham area was nice too(need to spend more than a half day there though) Thought of you the other day while during my travels north on an East Midland train. Heading home now. I owe you an ale the next time I am through. Have a nice day! 217.46.197.234 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Blnguyen's talk page
I just caught your comment on Blnguyen's talk page. I'll leave the reason as to why he unblocked me up to him, but I just want to ask you to provide evidence of me violating 3RR. I think you'll find it difficult, because I didn't violate it. Check the article history. And just a suggestion -- I think that you should take a look at the wider context of an issue before blocking people, this is the second time that you have blocked me in unfair circumstances. Other than the obvious fact that I never violated 3RR, you also ignored the fact that another (neutral) editor agreed that my application of the VUE policy in this respect was correct (I admit I probably should have taken it to the talk page earlier, however other ongoing discussions with Kaiwhakahaere suggested that that would not be fruitful, so instead I contacted other people to ask for a third opinion). PageantUpdater talk • contribs  23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) ... and perhaps I should also mention that prior to you blocking me I attemped to institute a "comment request" on the talk page, (although I couldn't get it to work and there were no responses to my request for help on this matter on the project's talk page), and also that I have since requested an opinion on this matter at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (that has also gone without response thus far). PageantUpdater talk • contribs  00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough 3RR case
Hi Pat. I was looking at this case.Do you know anything about this oversight business? I am reluctant to try to handle this case in a straightforward way, without knowing more about it. Good luck if you think you have it in hand. Maybe it could be sent to ANI? EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. User:Viridae protected the page. I found out that Giovani33 is still under a 1RR restriction from an Arbcom case. I don't know anything about DHeyward, but there is a history of controversy between those two editors. User:Viridae probably has more background on the issue, if it comes up on 3RR again. Now that BLP defeats 3RR, it seems we have to totally understand all BLP issues before we can close a case on any biographical article! EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, thanks your message. I didn't know about BLP being more important until now actually. But it's pretty subjective to decide what's bad and what isn't. For starters on that 3RR report they were bringing the dispute to the noticeboard which is a no-no. Someone should've moved it or at least ended the discussion right away. I think Gio. did "bait" the other guy (My memory fails me on username's), but he should've known better. I know nothing of the oversight business. I guess this highlights the problems that the Wiki is facing. I think we should write a 3RR Noticeboard guide for admins if there isn't one already; How to deal with reports, what's stale and what isn't (like that discussion we had before, did consensus come out of that?), BLP taking precendence like you said etc. etc. I think it could really be advantageous if we had something like that, would you agree? Thanks again for your message. Take care, Pat. Scarian  Call me Pat!  12:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we could have asked DHeyward if he *thought* any of his reverts were justified by BLP. Then if he said yes, we could have asked for general comment on his claim. Of course that does slow down a response to the complaint, but maybe it's OK! I'm wary of getting into policy proposals, but if you have something in mind, give it a go. If it were just labelled a 'Guide for administrators' perhaps that would make it less controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

QB and E-man
QB did ask permission to post it, and E-man said "OK". I don't think there was a need to delete that. Just watching, not acting on it. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe a misread the timestamps. I saw a long discussion on E-man's page by QB, to which eman replied "OK".  the copy/paste from the email had no "personal" or "confidential" information in it (I saw it before you deleted it).  But again, maybe I misread the timestamps...be right back.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did misread the timestamps. 22:18 QB was on Eman's page, eman replied at 22:21.  Meanwhile, QB added to her own talkpage at 22:20 (assumed permission, that was virtually simultaneously granted by e-man).  Sorry bout that.  Although, I still say that QB has a valid case built there, and the email should not have been an email, but a talkpost.  It contained nothing private/confidential, which, to my understanding is what email is for.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. I hate email. I don't even have it enabled, for several reasons, partly this type of stuff.  I've never been to IRC either for similar reasons.  I'll leave it deleted, I have (obviously) no vested interest either way.  I wouldn't be surprised if QB showed up eventually here though, just fair warning.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the end, no, I didnt wait for any kind of permission. I assumed that if he had a problem with it, he would say so when I finished posting and went back to check, and if so, I would have removed it immediately.  His Ok was my understanding that it was fine.  In the end, he didnt request for it to be removed, and therefore your preemptive actions make you seem a little too quick with the salt.  I wont repost it.  I'm not about to open that giant can of worms... you can block/warn about that kinda crap and I dont think its necessary.  You cannot, however, dictate what I do with my own email account.   Qb  | your 2 cents  23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm?
I dont really see anything wrong with posting the contents of an email that had nothing private within it. No email addresses were posted, nor real names. I have seen others post such contents on their talk pages. I dont believe that anything should be hidden away. I informed Engima that I would be posting the email. He did not object. I posted it. Your reasoning for salting the history was that I shouldnt post something without someone's consent. His lack of objection can be construed as consent.  Qb | your 2 cents  23:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be fair Qb you posted Enigma's email immediately after you posted to his talk page - that is without waiting for his response. I understand you don't want to change your !vote and that is your right but there is nothing unusual about asking !voters questions off wiki and those messages are kept private unless permission is provided. I can point you to examples if you like?-- VS talk 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See section above... i addressed this already.  Qb  | your 2 cents  23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Logic dictates that we ask permission before not assume them to take fault with it after. It's common courtesy to not reveal e-mails before asking first. This is disappointing behaviour to say the least, QB. Scarian  Call me Pat!  07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This does not bode well for any argument you make regarding this incident. Please, do not taint E with all of this wikidrama.  In the end, you removed and salted the post.  Fine.  You are free to take any measures you feel are necessary for keeping wiki working, the community thought enough of you to make you an admin in the first place.  I am free to allow people who want to see the email, see the email.  While I cannot post it, as you would most certainly issue preventative measures again, I see the only amicable way to handle this is to leave a message saying that those who want to see it, can.  Your quick and overarching actions, however, leave me wondering if you are just "protecting your interests".  None of this helps E.  Dont taint him with your actions.   Qb  | your 2 cents  09:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination
nt  Enigma  message 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scarian
Myself and a few others are looking at unblocking User:StewieGriffin!. Your thoughts? Keeper |  76  |  Disclaimer  18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just about to ask this too! Way to go Keeper76 :-P Metros (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With three administrators including myself questioning this block, I've gone ahead and lifted it. If you have any further issues with this matter, please raise it at WP:ANI in order to avoid a Wheel war. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Need your help!
I'd appreciate it if you could get on the -admins channel, I need to talk to you about an article I'm writing. Mike H. Fierce! 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You never responded! I went ahead and worked on the article anyway. I found 11 sources but some things are lacking, like a birthdate for her and some other information. I was wondering if you'd be willing to help in any way. The article is here. Mike H. Fierce! 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the Irish Wikipedians' Noticeboard, I posted a news item about it which outlines what I'm looking for from editors like you and others who are interested. Mike H. Fierce! 07:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your reply
about this incident. the problem is, the page is protected just after the 4th revert.

There is no need for the user to revert again, because it is already reverted with the 4th revert, which shouldn't happen in the first place. Would you revert that one back please? If I revert that myself, then this will trigger a new edit war, because the user is now encouraged to revert all my edits and even violate 3rr. --Icykip2005 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Counting reverts
If you are going to volunteer to enforce the 3RR you need to be more careful in counting them. See. Btw, the dark grey background makes this a remarkably hard page to read. Andyvphil(talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just reported User:Andyvphil for edit warring again. The third edit was 24 hours and 10 minutes after the first, but it is still edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (re: Voluntary article ban) I am in the middle of a length consensus-building process at the moment, so I will continue to edit on the talk page. For the last few days, my edits on the article have been largely restricted to minor formatting and reverting vandalism. I've left it to others to revert Andy's edits. Nevertheless, I will be mindful of what you have said and navigate for avoidance instead of collision, if you know what I mean. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RR blocks
Hi Stifle, just wanted to ask what was the rationale behind blocking Reezy for 8 hours? Isn't 24 the norm for first vio's? Thanks in advance for your reply (Btw, I'm not questioning the block, just inquiring about the length :-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I'm aware — the original vote which enacted 3RR said that all 3RR blocks could be up to 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Question?
Dear Scarian, I'm trying to understand all of the various reasons for the various types of blocks and was wondering if you could explain this indef block? I don't think there was abusive sockpuppetry going on and what Malcolm writes about everyone knowing he was formerly Kwork is true (because he said so, he came back after quitting under his real name). It seemed pretty transparent to me and I didn't see any attempts to use both accounts at once (and of course I can't double check now because the Kwork account has been deleted). Could you please shed some light on the situation for me? Renee (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I spoke with another admin who recommended a block. Additionally, the user who showed me the evidence was also an admin. He also recommended a block. Essentially, I'm the messenger. Malcolm was an indef blocked user under Kwork. He cannot return unless he's given a reprieve. Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. If I understand you correctly Kwork was indefinitely blocked and then when he came back as Malcolm that violated the indef block? This is my confusion -- I thought he had "vanished" and chosen to leave but see in the block log that in May he was indefinitely blocked.  Was he using that Kwork account abusively leading to an indef block?  That's what I can't find a record of anywhere. (Or, did someone find out that he had abandoned that account and was using the Malcolm account so they blocked that one so there'd be no question of sockpuppetry?  If it's the latter, that's why I'm having a hard time understanding why Malcolm was indef blocked.  If it's the former, I understand.)  Thanks for taking the time to help me understand.  Best, Renee (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Scarian

 * Thanks Scarian. You have volunteered yourself to be my sysop to approach when I see 3RR in action. Actually, while it was unarguably 3RR, I didn't realise I was over 3 edits. No probs. Anyway, could you have a look at Jane Bunford where User:KJP200876‎ is reverting to non wiki style. What happens now? Do I just walk away and let it happen? Will you look after it? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scarian, note the discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Pat
I'm back, for the moment. How are you? I see that you never followed up on my inquiry, though. When I left, I was hoping that wikipedia, and some of the things I had currently been working on here, would not go to total shit. Well, they haven't, but I see some things did change for the worse. I reported to you two issues, but I guess you never got around to them. User:Badagnani and User:Wiki libs have both broken WP:V over and over again. They refuse to provide sources for a few pages (prevalently on metalhead) and will not allow anyone else to delete anything (even though much of it is wrong). They refuse to follow WP:V and verify what is said with sources. Second, I also reported that User:Lykantrop again broke your rule and reverted back to his version on the NWOAHM page, and it is still around, meaning it's been around for around half a month, which is sickening to me. Anyways, maybe you'll get around to it this time. Thanks.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay. Thanks. I'm totally in favor of blocking Lykantrop again, seeing as how he seemingly cannot respect what an admin says. As for the other stuff, I really don't know what to say.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, alright. So be it.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, re: semi protection, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy Would you mind extending the block for a total of seven days to let the IP editor cool further on this particular topic? Their edits had been going on for several weeks prior to protection of the article. Many thanks. - Yellowdesk (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We'll see how it gets on in a couple of days. If he comes back straight away just buzz me and I'll prot. for a week. Thanks for your message, friend! Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re: semi protection, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy additional protection sought
Would you mind extending the block to Bdushaw as well. He/she has been in an edit war over this page for sometime. It appears that while he/she could have summarized the original submission as he/she requested after removing the information from the page, he/she did not do this action until after blocking others from submitting information to the page. Jacob2727 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SeriesYFilmes
I'm strongly suspecting that User:SeriesYFilmes is another User:Tarja Lawless The grammar patterns are similar. He's also doing much of the same stuff Tarja did, including filling the Xena articles with copyright violating links and copy-pasted materials from other websites, making a ton of articles for Xena related items, such as unnnotable albums, glutting articles with fansite links, fan opinions and personal opinions. He's also started doing some premature featured candidacy attempts, and made an attempt to move the Xena article via a copy-paste method. Any way to check this? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Navlos
Your friend is edit warring again. Please block him. You'll hear a cheer from all of Staffordshire if you do. Cheers mate! 83.231.130.42 (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardy har. Not only does the IP seem to be a sockpuppet (just look at those edits) but I have not broken 3RR. I already posted on the talk page and asked other users to do the same, but hey, you get a ton of IP users from nowhere that wanna revert you and refyuse to talk. I'm used to. I've made some extremists enemies and it seems I get reverted a lot by IP addresses and not real users. All the IPs that revert me also seem suspiciously like socks. I got an IP address the other day who only had edits reverting me. Hilarious. Too bad I can't do anything about it. Such is the way of life.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't take action because he hasn't made 3-4 reverts. Sorry Staffordshire! Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Promote your 3RR administrators guide?
Helllo Pat. Per my suggestion here, is it now time to make your admin guide official? EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Enigmaman moved the file, and I added a link (see the small print at upper right of WP:AN3 under the padlock). EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks Ed. He did it because he loves taking credit for things! ;-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  07:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no!!!!
Hey, what's up? We got problems! During my absence I see that line breaks have seemingly become more popular for metal bands (at least). That's fine but look at the Template:Infobox Musical artist. Someone recently changed it while I was gone. It now has both infoboxes with comma breaks! That doesn't even make sense, to have two infoboxes that are the same. One is supposed to have comma breaks and the other line breaks. This means trouble.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, Daniel. You know I don't want to get involved in that crap again ;-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know! Neither do I! But it's only a matter of time before we're all dragged in. Even you will eventually get dragged into this. We cannot be complacent! We came up with a great solution before at WP:METAL which would keep almost everyone happy. If there's arguement on a page then people dicuss it until consensus is reached by majority or logic. That works fine. Now it may be ruined because of this newest change! And it's only a matter of time before everyone (at least everyone who works on metal articles) is dragged in! If you can do something, Pat, the peace must be kept!  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 16:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hvor??
I think you must have your wiki's confuddled tonight. ;-). Still, it gave me a chance to practice my Dansk. Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR has become Dansk? I thought it was Swedish! I'm going to start making the headers in German. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI-Obama
I've left a question at the ANI thread itself: was the ban you suggested on all those editors, indefinite or for a certain duration? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. We need to make such a ban stringent so that it is not difficult to enforce - those editors are banned from making any edits whatsoever to Obama-related pages for the duration of the ban. If they violate this, they're given short blocks (increasing in duration for repeat blocks, and after 5, the duration increases to a month). I think it's the only way the message might finally sink in. Article probation would be very difficult to enforce - it's unlikely to do much on its own. That's why I looked into the details and came up with the suggestion of those sanctions against those editors who have contributed to the poor climate. Prevention is key to any progress being made with regards to both the article, and the conduct of all editors involved (and those who become involved at later date). The purpose is to stabilize the atmosphere there (and keep it that way). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it is a bit too weak. The only editor I suggested a block on (Kossack4Truth) for example, conducted himself very poorly over a series of weeks and he hadn't done anything towards improving the atmosphere. Making this on the talk page so recently does nothing towards contributing to a better climate - rather, the opposite. The messages that follow seem to show the same lack of understanding by editors as to how this is problematic to any progress being made. The misconduct has varied for each of them. NOTE - I say pages to include both the article and its talk pages, rather than articles alone. Until and unless they can stick to the issues of the article and discuss it in a collegial manner (camraderie of mutual respect among contributors), they really need to stay away. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that I've added 2 names to my initial list after further review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * is where it's being discussed. Please also see my talk page and that of EdJohnston. I've updated our proposals in a separate section for input - we really need to enforce prompt preventative action that's effective for some time at least so that we don't encounter these problems on this special BLP again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bug you again - you may also want to sign under the "NOTE ABOUT SUGGESTIONS", if you agree with that enforcement/interpretation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry again - could you please signal your view on proposal 7? I think we can safely conclude that the wider community (of involved and uninvolved users, including sysops) have come to overwhelming consensus on this remedy, if you also support it. In such an event, hopefully you can do the necessary formalities. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN3
Probably better to write in English here ;) Stifle (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Haunting
Hey, Scarian, I'm unfamiliar with some of the terminology you used over on the Barack Obama sanctions discussion. Could you explain what you're referring to so far's "haunting" and "null editing" is concerned? Shem(talk) 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Yeah, that's strange behavior. Shem(talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of Lakinekaki
(crossposting this here as well as the users talk page)


 * Er, doesn't it seem like a warning would have been better in this case? You basically blocked someone for stating an intention to violate a policy, I haven't seen that happen before. You say "for edit warring and for publicly admitting to edit warring" - where is the former? Which article? Was it ongoing? Can you reconsider this block? I don't know too much about Lakinekaki's history, but this just seems inappropriate on its face.


 * Thanks. Of course, if Lakinekaki actually persists in edit warring after such a serious warning, then a block for a longer period would be appropriate. Sounds contradictory, I know :-P AvruchT * ER 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See GAME, item #4, the example about the three-revert rule. Such an editor may well still be sanctioned, since the spirit of 3RR, and the issue it is protecting Wikipedia against, has been breached. Encouraging other editors to cooperate in breaking 3RR has also been sanctioned in the past: I invite other editors with common sense to join me in this. The issue of fibers in the Morgellons patients has been the subject of intense controversy in the past. The Morgellons article is subject to WP:MEDRS, and a TV segment on CNN is not a reliable source for the medical definition of a disease. (How about a peer-reviewed journal article instead). EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that you can break the spirit of the policy prior to any actual reversions. I didn't agree with Lakinekaki's sentiments or strategy (as I pointed out on his/her talkpage) but I don't think generally speaking its a good idea to block someone before they break a policy because they said they intended to. Vassyana made the point off-wiki that in a sense the block would be the purest form of "preventive" and in that sense perhaps a valid argument can be made, but I think the best step would've been a comprehensive warning and a couple days of monitoring the page. At any rate, the unblock is made. AvruchT * ER 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How have you been?
Drop me a good word or two when you get the chance. I was going to leap back into Wiki tonight with a good hard 3RR report. But you know how much I like those :D. I compiled it but will wait for a bit whilst I have a coffee. I think I see several Nav socks running about. A new crop of peoples with similar modus operandi and mimicky edit sums to boot. Troll-patrolling is too hard and fruitless. We should gather up a clan and make a featured article out of some stub about a animal or a fish or something. Ahoy! Libs (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your note the other night re: 3RR reports. The user is Johan Rachmaninov and despite my little warning the other night he is edit warring all over the place tonight. Too many pages to count. All his rv's are against the page agreements and can all be rv'd. He has a lot to learn about Wiki. By my slow observations it looks like Nav, Johann and Angry Shoplifter are all the same person... or close friends maybe. Too many similarities. Hammer time for Johan I'd say.. if I had a hammer that is :D . Ahoy! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to revert vandalism
Please reconsider your block of User:William_Saturn. The vandalism of Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008 has been an ongoing problem for some time now. -- Kendrick7talk 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think you should reconsider, but on different grounds. Whether reverting vandalism or not, the user was nowhere near 3RR - see my comment on the 3RR page William M. Connolley (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I didn't block for 3RR. The template says "edit warring", which the user has been doing recently whilst avoiding 3RR. If you still think he wasn't edit warring over a long period of time, and can show me evidence, then I will unblock. Scarian Call me Pat!  17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce
You had blocked RedSpruce for edit warring. He is making the same changes again to articles that got him blocked last time: He is removing sourced information against consensus during an ongoing RFC. This is probably the fifth time in each article. No conditions against re deleting were placed on him during his last block. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here at William Remington
 * Here at G. David Schine
 * Here at Elizabeth Bentley


 * Any thoughts on the matter? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A third party reverted his changes, and he re-reverted them once again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard, sorry for the late reply. I don't really wish to get involved. I see you brought the matter to WP:ANI a few days ago, did anything become of that? Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

you may need to block User :Nick326 again
 he is back to doing the same as he was warned about before. i dont really want to get involved anymore because i will get in trouble for being in an edit war or 3rrs. i was hoping you could sort it out again. thanks Perry mason (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked this user again, this time for 48 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This should not have even been a 3RR violation. My response to by block.  Arzel (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Commen
There is no reason for you to get involved, as I don't think I was being uncivil in the least bit. All I want is an explanation for why he removed several users from a list that I watch when he didn't remove himself. I probably could've just reverted it, but I thought I'd try and seek an explanation first instead of just assuming. So, no, there was nothing wrong with my actions here. Sorry if you misinterpreted it. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I take offense with your referring to me as "buddy". My intention was not to provide an "ultimatum", but rather to simply state a timetable for my actions, so that I would get a quicker response. Once again, you are grossly misinterpreting my actions, and this could be grounds for desysopping (though I won't go there at this point). Dr. Cash (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't intend to try and recall you. One incident like this is not enough to desysop someone. But if this type of behavior persists, then it could have future ramifications. As far as "Cheers, mate." is concerned, I don't have a problem with that. But when you say, "My problem wasn't with your questioning, buddy.", in the US, that can be construed as sarcastic, negative, and quite rude. Though since you're not from the US, I won't hold that against you. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR issue
link. Another who thinks he's entitled by rule to revert 3 times every 24 hours, and he can simply wait some hours and then resume edit-warring.  Enigma  message 23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Super power edit war
Hi, I listed a 3RR issue entry earlier today. And you decided to block both editors. I won't deny User:UKPhoenix79 was wrong too, he should not have engaged in an edit war, I believe though he was right in his revert(s). The version by User:24.205.234.250 for example introduced a dead link at the See also section, while removing other appropriate links 1. And the sources he added really do not say Russia is a superpower. The anonymous editor also placed nonsense warnings at my user and talk page 12. And removed a mention to the noticeboard from a talk post by User:UKPhoenix79. The other admin (AndonicO) said on IRC he would block User:24.205.234.250 and only give User:UKPhoenix79 a warning - after looking into it. I believe User:24.205.234.250 should have a block for the edit war and vandalism, and for User:UKPhoenix79 a warning should be sufficient. Especially because he stopped right away when I asked him, and with that ended the edit war. Species8473 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may ignore the above, User:UKPhoenix79 has requested to be unblocked, the request was declined. I will keep an eye on User:24.205.234.250, assuming good faith, and report if it does start over again. Have a good day. Species8473 (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note
Wikiquette_alerts - JaySweet concluded two users have already violated 3RR, and though I didn't have the time to make any formal report at AN/3RR or to check the merits, it may still be worth a look at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you - much appreciated. :)


 * While I'm here, as a btw update on the Obama ANI, most of the users who have engaged in problematic conduct have either been blocked or made appropriate assurances. I'm still not convinced Kossack4Truth's return after a month will be positive. Other than that, I want to watch the Obama article for a fortnight to decide if 1RR, civility parole (or article probation) is still (if at all) necessary. Cheers again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring page
I responded to your assessment on the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR‎ page. I do not like the idea of people being blocked, especially over a simple content dispute. I do, however, like the idea of people being prodded into the talk page to discuss/argue it out. At least opinions are made clear and justified that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy, or whatever it's called
I'm going to have to contest your blocking of the two editors. I think the protection could be lifted in lieu of something like a 1RR sanction vis-a-vis WP:ARBPIA, but until that happens (and even if it does) a protection of an article and a block of two editors for edit-warring is too much. It should be one or the other because blocks are preventative. Since the two blocked editors can't edit the article anyway due to the protection, the block's goal of preventing them from continuing to edit war on this article has already been accomplished. --  tariq abjotu  14:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ja, I figured that too late. I'll lift the blocks. My apologies. Scarian  Call me Pat!  15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried Friday alerting you here to my comments on my talk page; but although stated that the block was lifted; it was not, and I couldn't comment on your talk page. So belatedly here it is; and I hope you see to remedy it in retrospect.

This is what I wrote to you on my talk page Friday which you mustn't have seen.

As you have already unblocked me; so unblocking isn't the issue; but correctness and a fair record is. Someone must have alerted you to reversions going on that page, and I must assume that without checking them out, blocks were issued; so for the record let me state that I did not violate the three revert rule.

I was editing three different issues on that page and all in all I made three reverts in total; not a fourth revert, which even if a fourth on a page instead of four on a issue is counted; I still didn't violate the 3RR rule. On the other hand Tirpse77 made six!!! reversions on that page, and even if per issue is counted he violated the 3RR rule on one of those issues.

To make it easy for you to see what I am saying, I'll give short names for each of the three issues: they are; "academics", "blockade" and "its control".

Tirpse77 reverted "blockade" (reversion 1), "its control" (reversion 1) (reversion 2 for page), "its control" (reversion 2) (reversion 3 for page).

After three revisions of his on the page; I reverted "its control" for the first time. Then he reverted "its control for the third time, fourth reversion for the page. Then I reverted "its control" for the second time (also second time for the page; BTW thinking that I'm reverting "academics"; see my edit summary and comment on the talk page, and you'll see what I mean). Then he reverted "its control" for the fourth time (fifth reversion on the page). Then I reverted for the third and last time on this page. Three issues; all in all only three reversions; so how dies this violate the 3RR rule?

After that Tirpse77 reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy&diff=220432570&oldid=220428768 for the sixth!!! time, my edits on that page]. Where were the administrators then; while he managed to revert a fifth and sixth time?

As I already said, I was already unblocked; but still, in all fairness for the record; please remove the block in retrospect. Thank You. Itzse (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Itzse (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Tarja sock
User:BillKill2 is a new account that seems to be another of the Xenophile socks (TarjaLawless). Initial edits include uploading a stolen image of a living person, trying to send an article to FLC (issues with bad FA/FL noms are one of his/her trademarks), and then moving Xena: Warrior Princess to Xena: Warrior Princess (TV series), which is an unsupported disambiguation that the last sock, SeriesYFilm, also wanted to do. His being the Lawless sock has already been confirmed over at the Commons and he's been blocked there so can we please follow suite? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * USER:DIEGO RICARDO PEREIRA seems like it is likely another sock that got missed before that he's now reactivated. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to take anymore holidays my friend
One of you 3RR blocks has gone nuts. Wikipedia needs you. Libs (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed.  Enigma  message 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)