User talk:Stifle/Archive 0108

''This is an archive. Please do not leave new messages here. Leave them at User talk:Stifle instead.''

Saeb Erekat
There is a huge problem at this article, whereby the consensus of careful and literate editors has been systematically over-ridden. By my count there is just one editor wishing to make out that Erekat is a lier, whereas there are (or have been) seven opposed. I can see nothing in the reliable sources or common-sense for the former position, and lots against it (with BLP concerns as well). Administrator action would be very much appreciated - but not on the article. PRtalk 22:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's barely been edited since it's been unprotected. What do you want me to do? Stifle (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As administrator, we look to you to maintain the standards of the project, or at least to guide us towards a resolution of glaring problems as there are in this case. There are "content dispute" issues in this case which you cannot touch - but it cannot be very difficult to identify which of the editors involved are literate and are writing the article on the basis of the sources. Alternatively, like I said, act as a neutral third-party advising us to take it to RfC (or, in a case like this, direct to ArbCom, since there are several other examples of nearly the same thing). PRtalk 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the slow reply, I missed this as it was further up my talk page.)
 * I would recommend an article RFC but there have still been no edits so there really is no dispute to resolve. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your failing to notice my communication is quite understood - I've taken the liberty of re-factoring your TalkPage, I trust you will understand.
 * I fear that if an RfC is raised, it will be swamped by parties without the same dedication to policy that we should reasonably be able to expect from an administrator. Of the 7 editors (one of them an administrator) opposing one at Saeb Erekat, many have been bludgeoned into silence by pretty gross abuse of processes, false accusations of sock-puppetry, tantrums thrown when challenged on CoI and OWNERship maintained by these tactics across a wide range of articles. The integrity of the project is being (and has been) compromised over a long period across a huge number of articles (likely 1000s, perhaps even 10s of 1000s). You've blundered across this one, where the evidence is hugely stacked against the abusers, but it's by no means unique.
 * If you're not brave enough to drain the swamp yourself, then the obvious solution is to escalate this business until you find someone who is. PRtalk 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You still haven't told me what is wrong and what I can do about it. I repeat - the article has not been touched in 9 days. Nobody is currently accusing anybody, compromising integrity, or otherwise causing disruption there. I am away until the 30th from early tomorrow so if you still think something needs to be done, drop by Administrators' noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No editor will touch this article because of the retaliation they'll suffer, and the clear evidence that the editor in question has carte-blanche to write whatever he likes (7 to 1 against consensus in this case) and breach policy (BLP in this case).
 * And no administrator will act to defend the encyclopedia .... that's the new thing I've discovered! PRtalk 10:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the message is getting through. I do not know what you want me to do. You will need to tell me what you want me to do. Then I can consider whether it is warrnted. Please don't accuse me of anything until you've explained that much. Please also name the editor you are concerned about. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is with extreme reluctance I engage in edit-warring like activity, but I have scrapped the section on "lied over Jenin Massacre" at Saeb Erekat on BLP grounds (it's also a breach of notability, see extensive and conclusive discussion here).
 * I have also excised a portion of the "Jewish State Controversy" and renamed the whole section. It seems difficult to accept that Erekat really meant to say "no state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity", again it's inclusion is both non-notable and seems calculated to make him look like a fool. The first part of this paragraph is significant in his public life, however, and seems to accurately reflect his current "Negotiating position" (which is what I've re-named the section, instead of "Controversies"). Such a section should probably become the most important part of the article, except that I think ......
 * It would be helpful if you could lock the article at this point. There is a vast amount about Saeb Erekat that is very interesting, but with the extraordinarily tendacious editing that's been going on here, it'll be a long time before we can treat this subject in a fashion worthy of the project. The last thing I (or the other 6 editors who've tried to improve the article and stop the disruption here) want to do is waste still more of my/our time with editors so flagrantly in breach of every kind of WP:POLICY. PRtalk 09:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I decline to protect the page as it has only been edited twice in the last three weeks. I am not sure you understand the purpose of protection. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An editor just back from a 3.5 day block for edit-warring reverted the careful work I'd done (summary "vandalism"), with just his 2nd edit. This is the same thing he's done against the intent of 7 Talk-contributing editors. Since you appeared to take a keen interest in the matter, I just thought you'd like to know. PRtalk 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked him not to characterize good-faith edits as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I've wasted part of today producing this chart, which demonstrates what I told you. It turns out it's 8 editors (not 7) he's edit-warred into silence, just in this one article. (None of these people will much appreciate me drawing attention to this - especially not the one who is an admin and also failed to stop him).
 * I didn't drag you along to see what was happening at this article, you just turned up. You've neatly managed to demonstrate that even "neutral" administrators (surely to the great astonishment of everyone seeing this) dare not try and stop a reckless Israeli partisan editor when asked. Even when, as in this case, he is just back from a block for the exact same disruptive behavior across a range of other articles!
 * Fair play, you did ask him not to call my careful edit "vandalism", but that was hardly as much as a slap on the wrist. Did you notice he's already carried out several more straightforward reverts? See October 2000 events, New antisemitism, Islam: What the West Needs to Know and another edit of mine, Muhammad al-Durrah, where he's reinserted Pajamas Media, a blog. This is not a local, personalised, squabble - this is a pattern of abuse. PRtalk 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion; it's one I don't share. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to avoid turning this article into a battleground, but it's a very clear example of this editor rejecting consensus (an astonishing 8 to 1 against him on UNDUE and 4 to 1 on BLP), badly damaging an article in the process. The subject is actually an interesting and important person, there is lots of information to add about him - but nobody is going to work on an article so clearly under ownership by an editor so determined to inject bad vibes. PRtalk 09:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recommend an article RFC. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Response Insurance
This page should not have been deleted...There was no promotional info on the whole page. There is also no reason for a page to be deleted without warning, please let me know what has to be done to put this page back up.--Shawkey3 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Insurance was deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion, particularly number 11, a page existing only to promote a product or service. It is also eligible for deletion under number 7 in the Articles section, an article about a company which does not explain its importance or significance.
 * Speedy deletion is a process for the quick removal of content which there is a consensus to remove from Wikipedia. By its very nature it is not required to notify anyone (although it is generally done where possible).
 * You would have to provide citations from reliable sources which prove that your company is notable and meets the inclusion criteria if you want the page to be restored. If you think I acted incorrectly in deleting the page, you can file a deletion review. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment...when I first created the page it was deleted because it was too promotional and that was fine. The last time it was created it was also tagged for deletion but it was protested and the page was upheld by an administrator, and he said there was no promotional info on the Response Insurance page and it did not qualify for deletion. You say there is no reason for this company to have a page and I disagree with you...there are hundreds of insurance companies that have pages on Wikipedia, why is Response Insurance not allowed, that's discrimination. The only reason Response Insurance even has a page is to show readers that it is a real organization and it includes facts about the company...who, what, where & why. If Response Insurance is considered promotional than all insurance companies on Wikipedia are the same...see Unitrin Direct Auto Insurance. Layout of Response originally taken from this page. Could you tell me specifically what information was deemed promotional and I will correct it and repost the page. Anything you can do would be a big help...this page has been the bane of my existence,please advise. Thanks for your help!--Shawkey3 (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stifle, response given to user on user's talk page. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide me the content for the deleted page so I can compare it to Unitrin Direct Auto Insurance for the notability criteria? Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Will email it to you. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...or not, as you don't have email set up. Drop me a line with your email and I'll send it on. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Any word yet on wether or not this page will be brought back from the dead??--Shawkey3 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it be? Stifle (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was deleted for no good reason...I understand there was a "Notability" issue brought up...but Response Insurance is a real insurance company with policyholders and employees, which should be enough to keep it on Wikipedia. Also, this page was deemed a justified page previously by another administrator if you reference the past history.--Shawkey3 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted per CSD:A7, which is plenty good reason. You have yet to provide citations from reliable sources which verify that the company is notable and meets the guidelines. All you have said is it exists. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI...

I have not received the promised email from Stifle yet. You are certainly welcome to take over and ask for the copy for yourself, and edit it at a location like User:Shawkey3/Response Insurance, until it meets the notability criteria. Incedentally, Unitrin Direct is notable partly because it is a subsidiary of Unitrin, Inc. a notable company. If Response Insurance has similar pedigree (and you can find sourcing for this) then that may be used as a qualification for notability. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have sent it, perhaps you should check your spam filter. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with my spam filter. I just sent a test message to myself and it worked fine, appearing immediately.  No clue what happened. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just sent again. Let me know either way. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rum, user posting e-mails in public.
User 68.155.120.99 is reverting someone elses edits again in Rum and has posted an e-mail publicly. This e-mail needs to be removed immediately from public view as it is not intended for public view. Count Silvio (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the email address posted is a matter of public record, as are all details of the site's registrant (available through any whois lookup). Wiki contributors are allowed to post any information that is already available to the general public.  It was relevant to post the email of the site's registrant because it is reflected in your screen name, it demonstrates that you joined wikipedia not to contribute but only to add links.  There is an explanation on the talk page of why Wikipedia doesn't allow spam linking. 70.149.163.213 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The email address has been removed from the edit history. Evil Monkey - Hello 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit War on Pandyan Kingdom
Thanks for that. I was not aware of the other page (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) you mentioned on the 3RR page - I'll use it in the future for such matters. I have no idea what should be the correct version, I just came across the edit war whilst scanning the recent pages for vandalism to undo. It looked like things were getting nasty, so needed someone like yourself to step in and stop the war. Thanks for that! StephenBuxton (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien Ensemble - Peter Hall
When reading about The Tolkien Ensemble I noticed that only Caspar Reiff has a personal page on wikipedia. I can see that Peter Hall did have a page once but it has been deleted several times because "previously deleted content that was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" and "article about a real person not asserting that person's importance or significance"

Does that mean I cannot create a page about him without it being deleted by a wikipedia admin? Was the article deleted because of its content or because of the person's importance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annedorthevh (talk • contribs) 10:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. In future please type ~ at the end of your messages, which will sign it with the date and time.
 * I'm not sure what exact pages you're talking about. Can you please specify the exact title, between and  so I can go check them out? Thanks. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The main page is the page for the Danish band the Tolkien ensemble and the artist I wish to write about is Peter Hall. Now when I go to his page through the link from Tolkien ensemble I get the message that no such page exists. When I saw it last, when I wrote the other message, I was redirected to a page that explained that the article about Peter Hall had been deletede three times, twice by you. I know the man, he is my best friend's father, and I feel that she and I will be able to write a proper article about him if that was the problem with the last one. But if, as mentioned above, the article was deleted because he is not "important" enough to take up wikipedia space then of course we won't write the article.

130.226.173.22 (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I deleted it nearly two years ago but there's nothing stopping you from recreating the article if you include citations from reliable sources that assure us that Peter Hall meets the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:V. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

London Fire Brigade Equipment
As you correctly noted a number of photos on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Fire_Brigade_equipment have been taken from my website (www.lfbsite.com), with the URL on the photos covered over. This has been done without permission. I would be happy to re-upload the pictures so that they can remain but with the correct copyright holder acknowledged.

Tom Jefferson londonfiresite@yahoo.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.93.246 (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can reupload them at this page. Make sure you specify a free license as otherwise they can't be used. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Best Word Book Ever? References
Dear Stiffle,

I have followed your kind advice and recreated the page with a more neutral point of view. I understand now that speedy deletion makes authors learn to do things properly. I have put more info in and more references. However, someone put in a Speedy Deletion just because it was deleted before and a note has been left on my page about Citing it and not having good enough references. I have defended it as best I can, but I don't understand what they are saying and its all getting a bit too much for me. I am not very computer literate, I am 43 years old and I don't understand it all. I am trying hard to write a page about a book and I feel like giving up now. I've spent hours going round in circles, such as trying to figure out how to use the Book infobox- nowhere does it tell me how to put info into it. I know you said you weren';t the best person to turn to, but I don't know anyone else and I am affraid that person is just going to delete it all over again.

Thank you for your attention

IceDragon64 (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to include citations from reliable sources that prove that your book is notable and to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

References are now in place. Thank you for your attention. I have written a list of other things that would improve the page that I am struggling to do. If you feel like contributing, we would be grateful. Best Wishes,

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on my talk page
OOPS! Email now set up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 01:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AlishasAttic.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AlishasAttic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Sainsbury-Salis
Hi, You have pinned Amanda Sainsbury-Salis article as the tone inappropriate. Would you be able to tell what parts specifically is your concern so I can fix it? It is my first article so I need a little bit help. Many Thanks in advance. simthmegan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithmegan (talk • contribs) 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Manual of Style and Writing better articles for details on appropriate tone. Thanks for your message. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject High School Musical Tag, Assess, Improve and Create Drive
Wikiproject High School Musical is holding a Tag, Assess, Improve and Create drive from January 14 to February 4. Please see [|here] for details. Thank you -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC) ( This message was sent to all users in WP:HSM. If this message was sent to a non-member, I apologize. )

CBFan
Is it possible to also block CBFan's IP (79.74.13.75)? He used it before to vandalize the 3RR report, and is now using it to continue to push his POV and continue to be disruptive by vandalizing the userified version of the List of Crash Bandicoot characters to put it to what he wants and be uncivil on the article's talk page. I userfied the page in an attempt to work on the clean up and get feedback from other editors before implementing after CBFan's heated reaction, but he seems determined to accept any one else's ideas or allowed the article to be cleaned up, though it is full of OR issues and needs formatting fixes. :( Alternatively, if his IPs can't be blocked, can that page be protected from anon editing? Collectonian (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected that page. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, that is not true. I have not being even remotely trying to "push my PoV and continue to be disruptive". I explained, clearly and politely, what the problems Collectonian had in his re-write, of which there were several (Sentence fragments for the voice actors, characters being in the wrong section, mis-information), were, then I corrected them, noting him in the process. When I come back, he starts going on about me vandalising and I go and find he's gone right back to his old, relatively mis-informed, relatively mis-constructed, version. Collectonian is being too possesive if you ask me. He's refusing to accept any constructive edits or criticism PURELY because I made them, when in this instance I was trying to help him correct his mistakes. Really, I think you should un-protect the page. I am honestly just trying to be of assistance. 79.74.122.255 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in his user space. If it was an article I wouldn't even have considered protecting it, but he's trying to work on a draft in his own user space. Ownership doesn't apply to articles, but really if someone's trying to work on something in their userspace you don't have a right to mess with it. If and when he moves it to article space, then you can edit it as you see fit. Consider creating an account and working on an alternative version in your own user space if you wish. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He's given up working on it now so the issue is moot. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
As you're the administrator who looked into my report on Miyokan yesterday, I'm writing here rather than take it back the administrator board. The user has continued deleting information on the page, just as he has been doing each day. Even if it technically isn't 3RR, (it might be, I didn't check) it's a rather obvious case of persistent edit warring. The warning you gave and my WP:3RR warning were both edited out again, still called nonsense. After you gave that warning yesterday, the user has made the following edits in the same style,, ,. The problem, as I see it, is that this edit warring is going on day after day. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The irrelevant content has been removed by several users including an administrator, who said that this content is irrelevant and already discussed in talk in this edit . Furthermore, JdeJ reinserted this - and the uniformly positive and extensive coverage that Putin receives from the state-controlled media. - misrepresenting sources, because no where in those sources does it say that state run media is responsible for Putin's high approval ratings. Go on, quote me where it says that.--Miyokan (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have neither the time nor the inclination to figure out who has broken 3RR, who has edit warred, or who is right and who is wrong; there is an easy solution to this though. Hey, look, new shiny padlock :)
 * Please use the time (one week for now) to come to a consensus on the matter on the talk page. If you can agree on what to include in the meantime, you can list the page at WP:RFPP to be unprotected. If, on the other hand, the page comes off protection and edit warring resumes, then expect blocks.
 * You might also consider splitting the page down as it's over 100KB. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cork School of Music
Cork School of Music should not be merged with CIT because it has existed as an independent school far longer than it has been a department of CIT. Also CIT in itself is only really a third-level institute while Cork School of Music offers part-time music tuition to 1st level and 2nd level students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoinsmiddy (talk • contribs) 11:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a sub-college of CIT, which only has a short enough article, therefore they should be merged. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

re. behaviour of User: Grandy Grandy
Hi, I know you were one of the admins on the Requests for arbitration/Macedonia case. Could you please keep an eye on Grandy Grandy, he's becoming quite aggressive and rude on the Bosnian Mujahideen talk page. Example:. CheersOsli73 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you deleted this. Given the open debate on this at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_22, I wonder if you might add a closing staement there (doesn't have to be long, because the discussion fully supports deleting it as "daft"). I would just normally close it with a reference to the deleting admin, as a housekeeping move, but in this case I'd rather not. Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on Saint Francis House (Boston) image challenge
Many thanks for your help and advice resolving the matter. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

gilo article
I have taken note of your advice on the preview button and will try to do better. At the moment, though, Gilo has become a veritable battleground with some editor who is systematically reverting the information I have added to the article with sources. This person has demanded certain additions to the article to represent the Palestinian view, which I have complied with, but he/she continues on his/her merry way. Maybe you could have a look? Thanks.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Try a listing at WP:3O or WP:RFC. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

George Galloway
Pleasse check that my addition is proper. I have quoted the most recent biography of Galloway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21stCenturyBuoy (talk • contribs) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry,I forgot to sign. 21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything wrong with it but that is not to say that another user might. Please consider using the cite book template to properly cite a book. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Registering strong complaint here. Please see 21stCenturyBuoy's edit history and recent Galloway edits. This is feeding, surely - and no help at all.


 * Also, at least one of his group of citations was clear 'bulk' (it just mentioned Thorne's name, but added nothing) - opinion on inclusion aside. Matter's been discussed on GG Talk page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, which you're entitled to. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That wasn't the reply I expected from an admin! It doesn't make a great deal of sense to me, for either of my comments. I've just 'strongly complained' - choosing to reply (which you didn't have to), you should treat me a little less disdainfully (and patronisingly) than that! If you will look at my own history, you will see I'm a decent Wikipedian. It's actually a serious complaint I made - and straight to you - you should take it with some seriousness at least. Regarding 21stCenturyBuoy's obvious appeal to you - you should have kept out of it - otherwise what on earth is the point of having admins?? My time is valuable to me. You are supposed to prevent edit wars, not stroke the (very clear) perpetrators and 'green light' their behaviour. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you took my reply negatively. I have been having a lot of talk page activity lately, so I wrote shorter replies than usual. (That's why I protected this page for 10 minutes.)
 * All I said was "I can't see anything wrong with it but that is not to say that another user might", which should have been "would say the same". My bad.
 * From what I could see, the edit was cited and accurate but that was strictly as an editor. My administrator status should not be seen as a special stamp of approval of that or any other edit. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

3rr
Hi, you may want to check out this. Benjiboi 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Thank you kindly. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit was unhelpful too as it only served to somehow legitimize the administrators' inability or unwilligness to do their job after the event. In any case, what gives you the right to simply include such stuff on a WP page? And if you are, why is your edit sacrosant? Who has deemed it "unhelpful" besides you and Benji? Str1977 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I deemed the edit unhelpful. My addition to Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader was an effort to explain to other users that there are possible remedies other than blocking and that they are applied at admins' discretion. I was trying to help other people understand that reporting a 3RR violation may not always result in a block, not "somehow legitimize" something "after the event".
 * I fail to see any policy saying that administrators are mandatorily required to block users violating the 3RR and have no discretion in the matter. Indeed, under WP:3RR, I see "Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation." (my emphasis). See also WP:EW, where protection is listed as a solution to edit wars. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hereby notify you of this posting.
 * As for your reply here: that is exactly the problem (you may be unaware of this): the protection of the page does in no way end the edit war or solve the problem. The problem being partly a content dispute, partly one of Benji's ownershiplike behaviour on that article. It even strenghtend Benji by a) edging his version in stone (at least for the time being) b) making him feel that he did nothing wrong.
 * The point is not that you have to block anyone legitimately reported. No. But Benji did not just revert four times but six times. And not for the first time. So it is an "aggravated violation".
 * Futhermore, I think it questionable that an admin can involve himself in a case only half-way, not taking responsibility for the entire case.
 * My problem is the combination of all these elements: Benji gets his version protected, he gets away with breaking the rules (no block), he is not even told that his behaviour was somehow off the mark. No, nothing of the sort. Ah, and recently some people (Benji included) are trying to turn me into the evil culprit by unwarranted accusations. Str1977 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, on more thing: leaving all the legal stuff aside: why did you take no further action? Why is Benjiboi treated this leniently? Str1977 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, let's see if we can work this out.
 * Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. If you had been the last person to revert when the admin came along to protect the page, then your version would be showing now.
 * I have warned Benjiboi about his conduct - he will therefore not feel like he did nothing wrong.
 * The number of reverts does not have anything to do with it - the figure of three reverts was decided upon as the maximum above which action should be taken.
 * I have taken no actions in the case (or at least, not until now) - I picked up the issues at hand because Philippe recused himself and the 3RR noticeboard is not for discussion (that much was included there before all this started). I am not sure what alternative you would suggest to my involvement (or that of any other admin) given that Philippe was no longer willing to act in the matter.
 * The Wrong Version is always protected. That's why that page is there :)
 * Benjiboi has been warned as to his future conduct, he has been prevented from editing Rosie O'Donnell until Thursday evening, and if people are making unwarranted accusations, while that is not my fault, you can list them at WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, in reply to your posting:
 * Thanks for taking some kind of action. It allieviates a lot of my concerns about the proceedings.
 * Also note that not all of my grievances uttered above are your fault. Of couse, you cannot be held accountable for Philippe's actions (though maybe there should be some provision for admins getting involved in reports: that they should see things through). Nor are the unwarrented accusations. But it sure resulted in my frustration and hence I mentioned them so that you could understand.
 * May I ask you however (and please don't take this the wrong way) to desist from the usual sound admin bites like "the Wrong version". My problem was that protecting the page was of greater concern than addressing the report (that was what Philippe did). When a page has to be' protected of course one party always will complain but IMHO in this it needn't have to be protected. At least, it certainly doesn't lead to any resolution. I guess well-meaning admins cannot help it that the quicker revert warrior wins in those situations.
 * So I hope there's no hard feelings for pestering you in this case. I certainly have none. 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, thanks for being civil :) Stifle (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The George Galloway case above might be relevant to this possibly. Admins should obey tight laws IMO. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and there are no "laws" to "obey". Will answer your comment above in a moment. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what he meant was "admins should do their job". Str1977 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Micronit
What was the point of unblocking a user with a total of four edits to change their name when they have the option to just create the new account?  Lara  ❤  Love  18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that they only had 4 edits, but it doesn't do any harm either. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gilo citation error
G'day, first of all thanks for protecting the Gilo article. I just noticed however, there is a small error with one of the citations (number 4) i think that is giving a citation error if you would be able to fix that up sometime or possibly point me in the right direction for these sort of requests. Cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think protection is the right answer. Colour keeps changing from the older version, he reported someone for the 3 revert rule and then made 4 reverts while I made 2 reverts and stopped. Its like the system was manipulated to allow the person breaking the rules to get their way rather than getting them to stick with discussion to make changes, and he's going around making the same changes to other pages and reverting any change. I saw on the guidelines that we are supposed to make an edit, and if it gets reverted to discuss, not to keep reverting. --RobertRobertert (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can tell me exactly what you want changed then I will do it, otherwise put editprotected on the talk page with details of what is wrong and an admin will stop by and fix it. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is just giving a 'Cite error: Invalid &lt;ref&gt; tag; no text was provided for refs named Jerusalem_Post' error. I am not actually sure what is causing it, i am still to learn how to reference properly in wikipedia with full names etc. Cheers Robertert


 * Fixed. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the first paragraph with my name and don't know how it got attached to the second. --RobertRobertert (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you messed up the &lt;ref&gt; tag. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping you could respond to what I said though as he's continuing on other pages (using his ip address too) - I feel like I was punished for following the rules and reverting only twice. --RobertRobertert (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by that. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle edits
Thanks for your note. I did indeed consider the edits I reverted to be vandalism, and deliberately used the term. This is because they were made by an account which has only, and frequently, been used to add defamatory remarks, in breach of WP:BLP, to the article in question; they were made immediately following the end of a block imposed on the editor for WP:3RR on the same article; they simply re-added the same defamatory material, citing a different source; and in adding them the editor himself accused another editor, striving to maintain WP:NPOV, of vandalism. Under the circumstances, I thought -- and still think -- that it was reasonable to consider 21stCenturyBuoy guilty of vandalism. RolandR (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A 3RR report you closed
A 3RR report that you closed is being discussed at WP:ANI. Because it involves you, I'm notifying you - (incidentally, it involves me too). Please feel free to add any comments that you may have. - Philippe &#124; Talk 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm just about to head off for a week, I don't think I shall be adding anything there - I think it'll blow itself out by then. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and actually have just left a "i'm walking away" message to that extent. - Philippe &#124; Talk 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked article
Whens the block going to end for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War ? It's been 3 days (3 times 24 hours) and disputes are settled (for now). - PietervHuis (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It has already expired. For your information the correct term to use when an article is prevented from being edited is "protection" not "block". Stifle (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)