User talk:WikiManOne/Archive 2

Heads-up on a few counts

 * 1) You're unlikely to get your unblock request approved by citing the faults of other editors. (WP:NOTTHEM)
 * 2) In general, I recommend you cool it a bit in talk pages. Your drive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of reproductive health issues is laudable, but it'll be wasted if you get yourself blocked for incivility.
 * 3) Your article Bart Slepian duplicated another article, Barnett Slepian. I copied over all content that wasn't already there, attributing it to you, and converted your article into a redirect. (Any other victims of anti-abortion violence who should have articles? I created John Britton and Emily Lyons...)


 * Feel free to e-mail me if you have questions/want to talk. If you go to my user profile, you can "e-mail this user" from the left sidebar.


 * -- Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Make this a tad easier. If you want to email Roscelese, click here.  Goes to the same place. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It won't let me email, I never got the authentication email. :( Its okay though. Yes, we do need to expand coverage of notable anti-abortion violence victims. I'm working on the Planned Parenthood history section in a sandbox at the simple english wiki. WMO 02:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Go to My Preferences and scroll down to "E-mail options" under the User Profile" tab. There you can add your email address (make sure it is correct) and send another authentication email. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Potentially can be used
http://books.google.com/books?id=kAJN-OcsZhAC - Planned Parenthood and religions. Might be helpful for article improvement. WMO 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked
Since Haymaker was, I don't see any purpose in maintaining yours at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! WMO 19:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

PP History
Not sure if you saw my reply to you at my talk page: "It looks generally good, but what do you mean by 'the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League'? (I also think examples/greater clarity would benefit the 'force a halt to population growth through coercive methods' part.)" Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok, do you have any ideas for those two? I'm getting very irritated at editors who bring up the same topics that were discuessed two weeks ago over and over again. I agree that it could use more clarity, I'll work on it slowly.. lol WMO 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I mean: how was the clinic "organized into" the ABCL? Did its leadership become the leadership of a new and broader organization? Did it associate itself with an already-existing ABCL? As for "coercive methods," I've found the reference in your cited source (which you should link, by the way - it's on Google Books and it's page 473), but it doesn't go into detail - do you have another source that goes more into detail? Are we talking about forced sterilization - coercive economic incentives to get sterilized - economic punishments for people on welfare having more children, say??
 * I don't need a whisperback, by the way, unless it's been days and days with no reply, or something. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have a better source, the others all say pretty much the same thing as does Planned Parenthood themselves. I don't remember exactly what coercive methods is referring to... I can check. Ok on the wbs, it makes things easy for me as I don't really check usually but if you don't need it that's fine. WMO 02:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to remember to use it if I'm talking with you on another page. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lila Rose
I can't believe you are straight back at it reverting on the same article, reverting away, seriously, your seem to not have been listening. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lila Rose
By my count you're way over 3RR. Not a warning, just an observation. Lionel (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, because there are no reverts, I didn't take anything back to a previous version, just make a new version based on people's edits. WMO 03:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, have it your way. Please stop edit warring WP:3RR. You may be blocked. This ia a warning.Lionel (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I actually revert edits? WMO 03:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I give up on that page, I'm taking it off my watch list, too many pov pushers there. WMO 03:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's an excellent idea to step away from this page, and maybe similarly highly charged pages for a while. Editing contentious subjects on Wikipedia is usually a difficult and frustrating experience.  These are the pages that are most likely to attract POV, wikilawyering and a battleground mentality.  I'm not saying you shouldn't edit contentious pages, but I am saying that it's a much different experience than editing regular pages.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, where have you been? Question, am I correct that it doesn't count as a revert if you take what someone else wrote and edit from there and do not revert it back to the previous version? I'm getting this from where it says "version reverted to" on the reports form, so if you're not reverting at all but just taking what people write and adding/removing portions from there, it's technically not a revert, right? Yes, I am trying to disengage from most of these high stress articles, mostly focusing on local things with some work here and there on others, as well as the Planned Parenthood since that's in a pretty good npov position now and I want to improve it. WMO 04:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been a very challenging day for me IRL. Wikipedia struggles are absolutely relaxing in comparison. In general, you are right that if your edit builds on the last edit, then it's not a revert.  However, it is considered edit warring if your additions appear to be just a disguise for removing someone else's content.  You don't want to be in a position to be arguing technicalities, just coming off a block.  That being said, I looked through your newer contributions to the article and I didn't see any clear evidence of edit warring.  It also looked like an article that's no fun to edit.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That stinks. I don't think I was just removing.. but these guys don't assume good faith so who knows what they'll say. WMOM MAIN ACCOUNT 06:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I like your passion, but, well, you have been mentioned in an incident here. I tried to give you a friendly head's up, so did Off2riorob... Anyway, nothing personal. Lionel (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

La Sierra Academy
Don't prod it. See WP:NHS. Lionel (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so kind as to leave a demand on my talk page. I will keep your opinion under consideration. WMOM MAIN ACCOUNT 06:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean any offense. Just wanted to share with you that high schools have a lower standard of notability and that you needn't delete it if you didn't want to. You did a lot of work on it, and I know I wouldn't want my high school deleted.Lionel (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mail
Doc  talk  08:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit War
I will not template you right now, but you are currently at 4 reverts on the Planned Parenthood. Do you really think this is smart with a recent 3rr ban and an outstanding 3rr issue reported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marauder40 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm really not seeing that, I only made two reverts that I can see, and that one counts as one revert since they were consecutive. But fair enough, I'm tired of these frivolous reports. WMO 19:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing the information without using the undo key is the same as a revert.Marauder40 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Marauder40: I can only see two indirect (non-use of undo button) reverts. Please provide diffs.
 * @WikiManOne: Please avoid this page. Editing here is only going to cause problems. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After my warning he has in effect done a self revert and allowed the items to stand.Marauder40 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There were only two or possibly three reverts against 3rr, removal of undue information is not a revert unless I am removing it following someone adding it... Unless you want to accuse everyone that removes info from an article of breaking 3rr when they've removed three sentences... WMO 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You knew the same information had been put back into the article. You had already reverted the same pieces out and back in. You knew they were contentious.  You were violating the spirit of the 3rr rules and you know it.  I was nice enough to say that you did self-revert so leave it alone.  I have in my entire time only written up one person for 3rr, altough I have templeted and warned more then one. Leave it alone.Marauder40 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint about Lila Rose
Please see WP:AN3. Let me know if you have any questions about the edit-warring policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mail
22:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Personal attacks"
Hi WikiManOne, can you explain this edit to my talk page? Thanks - NYyankees51 (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, see this edit. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 03:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Snarky, yes...but that isn't a personal attack. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was criticizing your beliefs, not you as a person. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oversight request
Regarding what you said on ANI, I can't oversight anything, but I (or any other admin) can admin delete old versions of your user page if you would like. Would that be helpful? If so, do you want everything prior to the current version deleted, or everything before a particular date? --B (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All the old versions would be fine. thank you. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 16:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done - if you go to the page history, you will now see only the latest version. (You may need to hit refresh.) It's not oversighted (admins can still see the history) but it's gone from public view. --B (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you do the same thing with the old userpage/talk page, make them disappear? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 16:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got mail. --B (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, please, that if you had said that a Jew shouldn't close a particular move discussion, or an African-American, you'd be blocked already. With much dramahz on ANI, granted, but it would have happened. So be very, very careful what you say from this point out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was hardly a personal attack, it was simply stating that whoever judges this should have no known connections to either side. That is like having a prosecuting attorney as judge on cases brought by his colleagues. Perhaps it could have been phrased better, but I still think that anyone who closes that discussion should not give us any reason to believe that they were not fully neutral. The Jew/African-American analogy is mute, they are minority race groups who have frequently been discriminated against, that is not the case with Christians. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe AQ is an Episcopalian. Maybe AQ is a Catholic dissenter. We know nothing about hir views on abortion. This needs to stop. I've already given DeCausa a last warning before making an AN/I report; you'd do well to heed too. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why I clearly stated that I wasn't making a blanket statement for Christians. I clearly stated that I thought Episcopalians had very rational views on choice issues, so to accuse me of being anti-Christian on this really doesn't make too much sense. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 01:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, you seconded an editor who said that AQ shouldn't have closed because zie's Christian, assuming that zie opposed abortion. You said that editors at Lila Rose were accepting unreliable sources as reliable because they were Catholic and Christian. You said that a Christian would have to be very careful editing articles on social issues, as if everyone shouldn't be careful editing articles on social issues. Do you understand? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you.

Religion Lesson
In this post you say that "the Eucharist...is generally catholic", that isn't true. The Eucharist, commonly known as Holy Communion or just communion, is taken at most churches. For example, ELCA Lutherans take communion each week...I know, I am one and do. United Methodists take communion mostly on the major holidays of Easter and Christmas, as far as I know. According to our own article on the Eucharist, it is celebrated in Catholic, Orthodox, Syriac, Anglican, Protestant, Brethren, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Reformed, Presbyterian, United Methodist, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-day Saints (Mormon) and Seventh-day Adventists churches. Communion is not just Catholic or "generally catholic" as you put it, it is Christian. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is incorrect then. I am a former Seventh-day Adventist and we never celebrated eucharist. 01:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. Please see number 16 of this page. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 01:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't presume to tell WikiManOne what he did in his church - he knows better than we do. ;) I am not familiar enough with the SDAs to know how much variance there is with individual churches from what the denomination teaches, but I have seen churches (in other denominations) that, for one reason or another, rarely or never celebrate communion even though their denomination does.  Most Protestant churches don't refer to it as the Eucharist and reject the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (meaning that the bread+wine actually physically becomes the body+blood of Christ).  Even though the word "Eucharist" has nothing to do with transubstantiation, in my (obviously incomplete) observation Protestants who reject transubstantiation don't call it the Eucharist - we call it the Lord's supper, communion, or some such thing. --B (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, my misunderstanding. Adventists do celebrate "communion," at my Adventist school this meant we got crackers and punch.. I've never heard an Adventist refer to it as "Eucharist." My mom's church does it in a more formal way, but they still do not call it eucharist. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 01:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am ELCA Lutheran and we called it both "the Eucharist" and "communion". -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR
Warning!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pro-life. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Could you please verify that I actually am violating 3RR before templating a regular? Last I checked I only reverted twice. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 03:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "right" for 3 every 24 hours. Number one was this one. Which makes it three. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that that is quite a bit more than 24 hours before the second revert. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 04:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. Edit warring is not to be engaged in at all, 3rr is just a bright line in the sand that is very clearly edit warring. - Haymaker (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Says he who has been blocked for edit warring four times previously. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 04:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Abortion part of human sexuality, interpreted broadly?
The Template:Reproductive_health that is included in Abortion suggests that it is, thus these series of edits  ...15 other edits by same IP not shown ...  violate the topic ban. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Topic ban notice to User:DMSBel:
 * Topic ban notice to DMSBel's IP:
 * I wouldn't include it personally but I guess it depends on who defines it. Its just a routine medical procedure along the lines of amputation as far as I view it so I wouldn't include it. 17:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, good enough for me! Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Heartbeat
Heartbeat International (anti-abortion organization) shows up on the "New listings" page -- you know, the one that says "Entries in this section are newer than 7 days and should not be processed. This gives time for the original authors of the article to deal with the problem." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

AIV report
Hey there! Thanks for your report at WP:AIV. While the user you reported isn't vandalizing, I had a few questions.

Edits like this aren't vandalism. Sure, the user isn't adhering to a neutral point of view, but they're still only stating what the source citation says. What unsourced information have they been adding?

Cheers, m.o.p  22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Planned Parenthood. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, I hadn't realized you were the same guy that I was talking to on my talk page, so I'm opening an ANI thread asking for review of my actions. please feel free to respond here. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If I could point out two things: 1) I'm a he and 2) we are having the relevant ANI discussion here: WP:ANI. I'm sorry that I'm the one that blocked you WikiManOne; I have no animosity toward you or your opinion, though you probably think otherwise at the moment and are probably quite frustrated with me; however, I do see an unambiguous violation of 3RR. The question is not about my actions here, but about yours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why did the first admin to comment not say so or block me? Of course you'll probably go talk to them and get them to defend you, but they did clearly state that they didn't see me as fully responsible. This is a clear case of an administrator promoting their view in a content dispute and a misuse of admin powers. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really quite funny that you're having a review of your actions where I as the victim of your misuse of admin powers can't comment. Very cute to say the least. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really quite simple, an admin blocks a user they had just a few days early disagreed with, because of what they themselves call a "content dispute" on the very article that they had disagreed with the user on, in support of the other editor, who another admin had insinuated was just as to blame as I was, who shared their view. This should have been an uninvolved administrator to deal with this, and it wasn't, therefore it could not have been a fair block. The only uninvolved admin that commented has already been linked to above. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC):::If I may; you're always welcome to comment here with anything you'd like the people at ANI to know. As for Magog's actions, they are still valid, regardless of conflict of interest.
 * A parting note - remember that this is only for two days, and that it is as a result of your wrongdoing. Please don't let your anger at this time tar your long-term Wikipedia reputation. Cheers, m.o.p  23:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a conflict of interest, if you know anything about jurisprudence, even if a suspect is clearly guilty, and screw up on the prosecution's side that somehow goes against his rights makes him go free. I still do not think that this is a valid block and if wikipedia cannot see that, if Magog cannot see that it was highly inappropriate to block someone they had disagreed with only a few days before, on the very issue they disagreed on, in support of their viewpoint, that's ridiculous, and I don't know whether I will want to continue contributing to such a system. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest, and is always inappropriate, period. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the legal system. We go by our own policies and rules. You violated a rule, so you've been blocked; the administrator who blocked you happened to be involved. Yes, that's no ideal, and I don't encourage it, but in this case, the block was justified regardless. I'd advise taking a bit of a breather and calming down. Cheers, m.o.p  23:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And from wikipedia's own policies: "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."
 * That clearly was not followed, so will wikipedia do something about this egrigious violation of its own policies? Or will it allow it to slide when the administrators side with the abuser, as it did when Kanatipo attempted to out me and got away with it. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW the uninvolved admin supports the block. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not the uninvolved admin, obviously once an admin makes a move, most admins will simply back it up, the only uninvolved admin to comment before the actions is linked to above. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus supports this block. There's not much more I can say aside from what I've already said. m.o.p 23:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From an involved admin again, kindly undue your deny and allow an uninvolved admin to determine? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how I'm involved. I've never interacted with you until today. m.o.p  23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are clearly involved, you have denied quite a few of my vandalism reports, furthermore you are clearly operating out of a desire to protect Magog who you as you stated you "trust your ability to make a neutral judgment based solely on offenses" and you are operating under that preconceived idea, even where there is a clear conflict of interest here. This is completely inappropriate. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, keep a level head. I am not biased in this matter. Other administrators support this block. Again, I strongly encourage you to take a breather. Thank you, m.o.p  23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But your actions and words show otherwise, you came here with a preconceived idea and acted on it. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am an administrator. My job is to view something from a third-party perspective and form a course of action based on this observation. I have been doing this for years. Please trust me when I say my actions were completely neutral and with the encyclopedia's best interests in mind. This is pretty much all I can say. If you have anything you'd like me to tell those at the ANI report, let me know. Thank you, m.o.p  23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And you clearly am not a neutral third party, you have previously interacted with Magog and thought she was a "fair" admin, and you came here to defend her. You defending her at ANI and then coming here to deny my unblock request is highly inappropriate and because of your support of her, probably a conflict of interest as well. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate path is for an admin to unblock me because of the gross conflict of interest involved in the block. It would be preferable if Magog could see this and self revert. If I am really that clear of an edit warrior, it shouldn't take much to supposedly catch me again and allow for an uninvolved admin to settle that one. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like, I can certainly go ahead and unblock you, but from what I can see, I have a few other admins behind me ready to reinstate it, and your block log will look even more tarred. That said, I'm quite reluctant to do it even now, as you're failing to take any responsibility for edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, because now that you've influenced the other admins. This is ridiculous. I should be unblocked, and if I really am the edit warrior you claim, it shouldn't be much time at all until I am caught and an uninvolved admin can deal with it. If they reinstate a block based on a conflict of interest it would clearly be to support you and therefore inappropriate. This is your mistake and you need to take responsibility for it to have any credibility with me at all after this. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about whether my actions were wrong or not, this is about whether it was appropriate for an involved admin to use their tools to promote their view in a content dispute. I would like to remind everyone of this policy which you breached:
 * "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

It's not just likely to exist, it had been clearly stated previously. I don't see what's so hard to understand that Magog acted inappropriately here. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reblocked so now it's my block, not Magog's. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And you're also involved, you opposed me on the move request at Talk:Pro-life. Furthermore, you simply reinstated her misguided block, which seems to be just a case of an 'ole boys club.' WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this is even more unfair because there are now two items in the block log instead of one, because of something that is Magog's fault. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah; you asked another admin to reblock you, now one has, and you're mad. Here's a cake, which you can have, and eat it too. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You violated clear policy and you're getting away with it with impunity, please specify where I asked another admin to reblock me, I certainly don't see it. Furthermore, the new admin is also not uninvolved which doesn't help the situation any.WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 00:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarek grabs the shovel away from WikiManOne. "Quit digging."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot possibly be claiming to be neutral. Furthermore, what sort of penalty is being applied to Magog for clear violation and misuse of admin tools? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous edit at Planned Parenthood
here. That whole section was included as a result of hard fought consensus on the talk page and an editor has now removed it taking away all npov from the section. The complete discussion can be seen here. This is a case where multiple editors are refusing to collaborate and constantly remove info that was clearly discussed on the talk page to their pov. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, everyone is refusing to collaborate except for you. This is part of the reason I don't want to unblock you. You'd immediately return to the edit war because you still don't understand that you've done something wrong. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to look at this which would seem to indicate I am looking for consensus on that article. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 00:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let an uninvolved admin block me for whatever new case of edit warring you are so sure you will find. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the edit in question, as I have said several times when this same passage verbatim has been added to the article on Live Action or Lila Rose, there are multiple fundamental flaws with it. One is that it has "anti-choice groups" in quotes, even though that phrase doesn't occur in a single one of the sources.  A second problem is that the quote from the Salon columnist is of his preconceived notion about the videos ("Between Jan.11 and Jan. 15, ... [t]his meant, obviously, that someone was trying to pull a James O'Keefe-style 'sting' ..."), not his thoughtful analysis after the fact.  If the videos are, in fact, deceptively edited, then someone who had actually seen them when developing that opinion of them, and preferably someone who works for a mainstream media outlet, should be able to tell us that.  Lastly, the videos depict a hoax - the videos themselves are not hoaxes.  The scenario itself (the pimp+prostitute) was designed to entrap the staff - the video was to DOCUMENT this entrapment.  The video is not a hoax and the video did not entrap anybody.  Rather, the video DEPICTS the entrapment.  It's kinda like if I take a picture of a bowl of ice cream.  My picture is not ice cream - it's a depiction of ice cream.  The only way the video is a hoax is if they tried to claim that the people depicted in the video were, in fact, a pimp and a prostitute. --B (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the videos, but if they were edited so that they seemed to display something other than what they claimed to, they could indeed be called hoaxes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I agree with you there - if the videos were, in fact, deceptively edited, then you could possibly call them hoaxes, but in this particular case, the sources in question only referred to the fictional scenario as a hoax - not to the videos.  The passage in our article incorrectly said These videos have been referred to as "hoaxes" perpetuated by "anti-choice groups" "in order to entrap clinic staff.", which is false on nearly every level - they weren't referred to as hoaxes, they weren't referred to as perpetuated by "anti-choice groups", and the videos did not "entrap clinic staff" (they documented the entrapment). --B (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless, that section is the result of VERY hard fought consensus which you can see at the link, any changes to that need to be fully discussed before being made. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I see where you linked above to Talk:Planned_Parenthood/Archive_3, but I don't see anything there that's a consensus of anything regarding this passage.  I see several proposals and several people making suggestions regarding alternatives, but nowhere that anyone other than you agreed with it.  And even if they did, posting unquestionably false content that completely lies about what the sources say is never a good idea. And even if the content were accurately conveying what the sources said, a Salon opinion piece is not exactly a neutral arbiter of the authenticity of the videos. --B (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Mattnad and Sitush agreed to it as well. Perhaps this could be worked in as well if you're planning on rewriting it. We need to include both sides, as of right now, the article only includes the attack and not the defense. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 20:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what it is I should be looking for in the NPR link. Nowhere in there does it claim that the Live Action videos were deceptively edited (not even that the O'Keefe videos were deceptively edited).  The only criticism I see is of Andrew Breitbart for the Shirley Sherrod mess. --B (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)