Revision as of 22:03, 12 August 2009

To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X. This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering. Proverb for the year: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. I tend to remove pointless chatter on this page. If I've removed your edit with a summary of "See the proverb for the year at the top", this is the proverb I mean. If I've simply rolled back your edit, it is because I've told you this before and am now bored with you. Sorry: it it up to you to be more interesting. I live in hope that some people might read and think about the quote from Hobbes, above. If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this. If you're wondering about 3RR, you can try /3RR. You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. I "archive" (i.e. delete old stuff) quite aggressively (it makes up for my untidiness in real life). If you need to pull something back from the history, please do. Once. Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. My Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions • Block log Dispute resolution, Bible style: If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. — Matthew 18:15

The Holding Pen

The <div> tag and Cascading Style Sheets_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets-The_Holding_Pen-2009-02-03T06:39:00.000Z">

The <div> tag is part of the HTML standard, and in essence lets you group things logically in a HTML page. Since different user agents have different needs and treat the data differently (e.g. a screen reader for the visually impaired, a bot or a normal browser like Firefox) the rendering of elements and the logical structure has been separated into two different languages: HTML and CSS.

HTML is supposed to structure the document logically while CSS is used to change the visual appearance of a page. A website usually only has one or a few CSS documents (style sheets). Many HTML documents can then share the same style sheet, providing consistent formatting across the site.

The div element has two attributes, class and style, that are linked to the style sheet. The class attribute determines what "class" the element belong to. It is then possible to define a default style for elements of this class in the style sheet .

The style element is what's most interesting here though, it lets you override the default style of an element. So the part within the style="" is actually CSS.

W3C (website) is in charge of the CSS standard and it can be found on their website. Unfortunately, the dominating browser sets the de facto standard so things might not work as expected or even be implemented yet.

The W3C specifications aren't particularly good for learning but they are good as a reference. What you are looking for is probably: .

If you search the webb for CSS you will find countless examples and tutorials. Quick Googling turned up this for example: .

I took the liberty to modify your div tags on this page as an example, feel free to modify and revert as you like. I hope this is somewhat helpful at least. :)
—Apis (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets"> _tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets">

Thanks! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviving Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

Crownest has expressed interest in reviving this. Since you were a member of the FD project (now converted into a taskforce), I'm wondering if you'd be a part of the Taskforce. The taskforce is undergoing a significant overhaul at the moment, and by the end of it, it should be fairly easy to get around and there should be a nifty compendium of useful tools for people interested in FD. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I can help in small ways, though no longer being professionally involved. I wonder if there is an embedded prog taskforce? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Prog taskforced?Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ocean acidification

A reader writes:

"Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean."

I'm not sure, but it sounds odd. You can beat me to it if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it was User:Plumbago William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Correctly deduced. It was me. It may not be worded well, but I think that it's factually correct. Basically, as well as its other effects on living organisms in the ocean, acidification is also expected (see the references) to dissolve existing carbonate sediments in the oceans. This will increase the ocean's alkalinity inventory, which in turn increases its buffering capacity for CO2 - that is, the ocean can then store more CO2 at equilibrium than before (i.e. the "implications for climate change" alluded to). As a sidenote, it also means that palaeo scientists interested in inferring the past from carbonate sediment records will have to work fast (well, centuries) before their subject matter dissolves away! Hope this helps. --PLUMBAGO 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Double diffusive convection

Bit surprised there is no article on DDC? Has the term gone out of fashion? It was half the course in "Buoyancy in Fluid Dynamics" when I did Part III 23 years ago. --BozMo talk 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember is was a nice demo on the fluid dynamics summer school DAMPT ran. Not sure I would still be confident of writing it up 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I might have to suggest it to Huppert or someone. --BozMo talk 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If one of you two makes a stub, I'd be willing to read up on it and make it a longer stub. Awickert (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What a kind offer. I have started here: Double diffusive convection--BozMo talk 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All right - I'll get to it (eventually). It's on my to-do list. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

CSS site

Forgive the quick note, but I happened to notice the comments at the top about CSS, and some places to learn about it. I second the site mentioned, but also take a look at the CSS Zen Garden at ] - it's a great place to quickly see what CSS is capable of doing. Basically, it's a site where people take the exact same HMTL page, but use a different .css file, and completely change how the page looks. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Current

CF topic bans

and for details William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]

Reviewed: William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, looking back at the ANI ban review, I still think that it would be better to simply send it again to ANI to confirm that the community supports that the ban is indefinite pending review (because some people, including the closing admin, appeared to think that it was just a review of a one month topic ban). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CC

I've just noticed climate change has accumulated lots of cruft, not to mention a distressing number of obvious errors. If you want to help with cleanup that would be great. BTW you may be interested in this. Boris noticing climate change have bourgeois excess and provocations. Duty is assisting heroic efforts to institute reliability. Basis for new five-year plan here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo. What happened to the Russian accent? It is about time I actually did something useful for climate articles instead of attracting flak for blocking people. OK William M. Connolley (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Spiffing William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

High Tides (Non-Wiki Question)

Hey, I think you're into this sort of thing. Have any opinions about the unusually high tides the east coast of North America has been seeing? Sounds pretty interesting. OlYeller 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no idea - first I'd heard of it. I agree, there is no chance this is global SLR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

augh

I'll admit I didn't really assume good faith about the Abd arbcom given some recent actions of yours, but after reading Abd's posts on the case I've done a complete 180. He is even more annoying than Giovanni33. Jtrainor (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah well I'm glad you've seen the light in the end :-). Lets hope it isn't an oncoming train William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Information-Line

Hello William,

Thank you for blocking user Information-Line, but I can't find it in the log? Also my apologies for not requesting it on the the right page. Normally I'm an active user and moderator (=sysop) on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, so this was my first time requesting these kind of things over here. Cheers, Jeroen (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:BlockList&ip=Information-Line shows it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gates article

I replied at my talk page, but in case you didn't watchlist it, here is my response:

I see nothing here that says anything about accusations of vandalism. According to WP:Vandalism, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is, hence my assertion that his continued reversion against the clearly stated consensus is tantamount to vandalism. According to WP:Vandalism, it is. From where I'm sitting, your falsely accusing me of violating WP:NPA is the same as how you perceive my warning Viriditas against vandalism. I'm sure the irony doesn't escape you. Have a pleasant day, and I sincerely wish you luck if you wish to wade further into this issue. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I read your reply. I maintain my warning William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I civilly request a retraction of my warning. I was warned for "accusation of vandalism". I warned the person reported on their own talk page against edit warring. You specifically state that you didn't get into the diffs enough to figure out if the person reported was edit warring, but saw a big mess and protected the whole page. Then you came and warned me on civility. Note I am not even making the same defense as Wilhelm above, but that my statements to the user were regarding edit warring, which was noted by several other users in the discussion, which was reported and which was apparently never fairly adjudicated since no one looked at the diffs. We are all being punished for one bad apple. Further, blocking a page from editing when someone reports a specific user for specific incidents could possibly lead to people being hesitant to report unruly bad apples in the future because they want to use the page. Manyanswer (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your warming remains. You have made some errors in your comment: you were warned for seconding a warning of vandalism , not edit warring (I would not have complained about the latter). I did not protect the page, and I am unsure why you think I did William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no line break between the page block notice and your sig. Sorry if I misread that. Your error is thinking that I seconded the vandalism charge, when I seconded the statement "Please stop your disruptive editing" and then clearly talked about edit warring as I thought that was the appropriate charge. Manyanswer (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a quote from the block log. You'll see the blocking admin in there. You "second that" was ambiguous at best. However, if you are clearly stating that you do not and did not accuse V of vandalism then I will withdraw my warning William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to accuse him of that and will happily state so. I tried to focus my comments on edit warring and I'm sorry if there was ambiguity. That said, given Wilhelm's further clarifications I'm on the fence over whether or not it actually was vandalism. The user is perseverating and consistently bringing up that he "doesn't recognize a clear consensus" because he alone doesn't agree. Then he goes and remakes his edit. This is after amazingly long discussions where he rejects every argument and remains the only voice on his side. We try, but one can only go so far. I do understand why you wouldn't want to wade through all that text!! Manyanswer (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I will further add that the user in question has been blocked for edit warring within the past couple of months. Manyanswer (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to your civility warning William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And how do you justify calling my valid warning of vandalism a personal attack? Have you seen Viritidas' multiple instances of edit warring, assuming bad faith, POV pushing and harassing other editors (diff)? Honestly, I have no beef with you, and I would have no beef with Viritidas if he would stop gaming the system and start actually playing by the rules. If he would work with consensus there would be no problem to begin with, but his constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments do not nullify the stated consensus of ALL the other editors of the article. He just keeps reinserting his own POV in direct conflict with a strong consensus which, after multiple warnings (which he has opted to erase off his talk page), does constitute vandalism, per WP:VANDAL. Before you respond, you may wish to review the following diffs: Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are failing to distinguish vandalism from content disputes. You are (incorrectly) using vandalism to refer to edits that you don't like. You have referredme to WP:VANDAL, but you obviously haven't read it. Under "what is not vandalism" it clearly states "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Read it again, from the beginning, please. I have even quoted you the relevant passage from, I believe the third paragraph. It has nothing to do with edits I don't like. It's repeatedly reinstating the same edit against the clear consensus of all involved editors. That IS vandalism. It's right in there. Please, read it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, won't do (is it a personal opinion? Who says so?). That is from the summary. You'll need to find text from within the body of the policy William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you saying, 'No, you won't reread WP:VANDALISM'? Now you're just being silly and obstinate! How can you pass down a judgment about a policy without taking the time to review that same policy, even after it has been quoted to you? Do you think I just fabricated the quote I provided? Last time I checked, everything on the WP:VANDAL page is 'the body of the policy' and stuff that is 'a personal opinion' is on the talk page (WT:VANDAL). I still have not heard your defense of citing NPA, however. You don't get to just come marching through making up the rules and not even taking the time to read anything! The last thing that is needed here is more hasty action. I strongly urge you to take the time to thoroughly review the whole situation (I even provided you the diffs) and review relevant policies before intervening. Intervening without doing so is not helping anything, and does not speak well to your role here. Once again, what part of WP:NPA applies? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you read it wrong. "won't do" means "what you have just said is not acceptable" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And please follow the diffs and adjudicate the edit warring charge fully (from a third person, not even Wilhelm or I). If you adimittedly didn't bother to do so, you're judging something a content dispute instead of a clear consensus violated by an edit warrior without even looking into the facts. If it's a clear consensus violated by edit warring, I think Wilhelm is right that it counts as vandalism. There are several other editors on that page who clearly said "we have a clear consensus, with one (loud) opposing voice". And yet he inserted it yet again. There is a poll, and he was the only vote against. Please at least look. Manyanswer (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Blocks are (all together now) preventative not punitive. Traditionally, once a page has been protected it is highly unusual for anyone to be blocked (see the case of GoRight just yesterday) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to the appropriateness of your warnings was my point. Also, see above that I did meet your standard for withdrawing my warning and would like you to do so. Manyanswer (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is irrelevant to my warning William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, but I humbly request that if you don't follow all the diffs that you refrain from handing out warnings. Thank you sincerely for your clarification on mine. Manyanswer (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Request denied William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I support William M. Connolley's position here. This is a content dispute. People should not use the word "vandalism" to describe the position they oppose in content disputes. WMC is reading the policy correctly, in my opinion. That part of the policy is, in my opinion, intended to apply to a situation like this: a new user adds a paragraph to Barack Obama beginning "Actually, Obama is the worst president we've ever had because ...". This is not that type of situation. Please read the whole sentence of the part of policy you quote, including this part: "however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW". An administrator can very often recognize that a content dispute is a content dispute and usefully take action such as protecting a page etc. without having to read every nitty-gritty detail of a disorganized, involved discussion. If you want to make it clear that there is rough consensus for one version, I suggest setting up a poll, displaying concisely reasons for each version; then an administrator or anyone else can tell at a glance if all but one editor support one version. There is normally no need to go back and analyse past editwars (e.g. if they've stopped because the page has been protected). (Sorry, WMC, about my previous post: I realized it was lame when I posted it; I was following my standard practices, which need to be tweaked.☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Coppertwig, for providing a clear and well-reasoned argument as to why WP:VANDAL does not apply. In light of this, I will concede that this instance of edit warring falls outside WP:VANDAL and that my warning, as it was stated, is invalid. I do hope that others involved here can see, however, that it was made in good faith and was not in any way a personal attack. Again, I reiterate that a vandalism warning, even a false accusation, even one made in bad faith, is not a personal attack. Certainly a good-faith, if erroneous, vandalism warning does not merit a tit-for-tat warning. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the poll and if you follow down the user in question states about 50 times that polls do not represent consensus and that he doesn't recognize the consensus. I don't care if this wasn't vandalism. It was edit warring plain and simple. If you have suggestions to us for how to deal with an editor who follows up on this poll by bringing it up ten more times, perseverating and reinserting his edit 3 times every 30 hours, other than blocking the whole page, that would be constructive. Right now our takeaway is if we report him we get dumped on and our page gets blocked. Manyanswer (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with you (though I emphasise that I haven't looked at the poll in question) as a general point. On the protection issue, I personally prefer not to protect pages in dispute but to block whoever was edit warring, pretty well to avoid the frustration you now have. However, this doesn't look close to the situation where I'd overturn another admins decision: your recourse in this case is to try to persuade the protecting admin that this was the wrong decision. Don't get too hopeful though. As to Right now our takeaway is if we report him we get dumped on I have no sympathy at all: the only dumping you (ie, you and Wm) got was for the vandalism accusations; now resolved in your case. And I'm sure you didn't mean to write and our page gets blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I've just started /3RR. Be aware it is incomplete William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathy and the noble effort going forward. I do see your point about the warnings being separate. I plead that I was "flummoxed" by the other issues. Manyanswer (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

We've got a WP:BLP violation involving defamatory information against the subject. An Op-Ed is being used to cite this claim. You'll possibly see this on the 3rr board from Vision Thing. Scribner (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally not a fan of blocks where discussion hasn't been given a chance to work. But Scribner's behavior with regard to that article has been disruptive for some time now, and his efforts to get administrative action against anyone who doesn't see things his way is disruptive. This content:

According to The Economist, in 2003 Krugman was ranked as the second most partisan American political columnist, behind only Ann Coulter. The Economist concluded that Krugman gives lay readers the illusion that his personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory. ref The Economist, Face Value: Paul Krugman, one-handed economist /ref

is clearly not defamatory. A discussion of whether the article should be trimmed of content sourced to op-eds (including Krugmans') has been going on for some time on the talk page. But hysterics and edit warring against several editors by Scribner has not been helpful. Other sources also discuss Krugman's partisanship, so it seems to be notable. A discussion of how best to phrase and source it should take place on the talk page of the article instead of through proxy wars seeking Admin intervention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight is one of the editors pushing this edit on the Krugman article. I've filed a RFC on article talk page but the tag is outdated and I don't know how to update the request. Request assistance. Scribner (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In the context of PG's boldness and fame, I don't think that is really a BLP violation. He is a big boy. Whether it belongs in the article or not is another matter. Why not instead quote What is beyond dispute is that Mr Krugman is the finest economist to become a media superstar—at least since Milton Friedman or, earlier, John Maynard Keynes turned to journalism. Mr Krugman's work on currency crises and international trade is widely admired by other economists. He holds the John Bates Clark medal in economics, which is slightly harder to get than a Nobel prize. As for popularity, his new book, “The Great Unravelling”—his eighth aimed at a broad, non-academic readership—has spent eight weeks on the New York Times bestseller list? Discalimer: his blog is on my google reader list; not that I actually read it much nowadays William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt: if anyone tries to claim BLP exemption from 3RR for removing this text, I think they will fail. They will if I'm judging it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to including: According to the economist, "Mr Krugman is the finest economist to become a media superstar—at least since Milton Friedman or, earlier, John Maynard Keynes turned to journalism." Seems reasonable. The other bits quoted are I think excessive and covered already. As far as "pushing" anything, I only restored the economist bit after I removed it accidentally and received a courteous note from the editor who added it. I don't know if that particular wording is useful, but I think note of his partisanship is probably worthwhile and noted in several places (such as the Newsweek article). ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It was just a random quote. We'll see. In the meantime, I see the inevitable has happened at WP:AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick

As you can see from the talk page for Quick, steps were taken to address sourcing on this matter, and other editors previously involved have been consulted. The right steps have been taken this time to address this situation, and you are curtailing a proper resolution.

If you believe this needs some dispute management, please recommend that rather than freezing the page for a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk • contribs)

Please learn how to sign your talk posts. Better, get an account. As to the substance: on the talk page I see you asserting that your edit is fine. I don't see anyone agreeing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Signing my posts or getting an account isn't really germane. And I have provided sourcing, rather than assertions.

While it's early to see anyone else even commenting, never mind agreeing (or disagreeing) yet, I do offer this from a conversation with another editor:

"You have my apologies, IP single purpose account. You have my blessing to reintroduce the previous marriage information, though you will likely still have to convince others. You might open a section on the talk page and make the step by step explanation...." User:Syrthiss 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk)

Signing your posts is a matter of politeness. It is rude not to do so William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC, would you please explain further your reason for blocking User:162.6.97.3? You said "incivility and edit warring." Was that for edits to this page? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, you appear to be wikistalking WMC. Why are you doing this? Mathsci (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, you appear to be wikistalking both WMC and Coppertwig. Please explain yourself. (Edit made merely to illustrate the absurdity of it all.) --GoRight (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wikistalking. WMC, I'm sorry if I'm bothering you. That is not my intention. This user talk page got onto my watchlist somehow (well, because we were having a discussion earlier) and has been attracting my attention when I look at my watchlist. WMC, if you let me know that you would prefer it, I'll shift my attention elsewhere except for watching for replies to this thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:162.6.97.3

WP:BLANKING clearly allows for a user to remove old warnings and block notices, and I'd previously told this anon as much. Please explain what reason you have for restoring them and protecting the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It allows a *user* to blank their talk page. Anons don't "own" their pages, for the obvious reason that any number of people may use that page, so no one person can be allowed to blank it. I note your ref, disagree with it, and will discuss there William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand!! More than one person may be using the page; so the one deleting a warning may not be the person the warning was addressed to. The warning needs to stay there so that if the original person comes back (whether under the same account, or viewing the page while logged in under a different account) they can see the messages to themself. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, WMC, what was your reason for changing the block to indefinite ? Apparently the IP account did no edits between the original 24-hour block and your change to indef. Also I thought IP accounts were usually not indef-blocked since they may be used by multiple people at various times. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously your right to disagree with it, but I very much disagree with your enforcing the opposite of what the guideline clearly states. Change consensus first, then block IPs for doing things you don't like. --Onorem♠Dil 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I decided I didn't like the guideline so I changed it (though I did ask first). We'll see who bites. I agree with your comment though William M. Connolley (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to unprotect User talk:162.6.97.3? Regardless of if you agree with the WP:BLANKING section of the WP:USER guideline, indefinitely protecting the talk page of an IP that has only been blocked for 24 hours is highly irregular. While I presume this was a mistake, I practice a 0RR policy for the actions of fellow admins, and I would prefer to give you the chance to correct it rather than take it to WP:AN/I. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, if was deliberate. However, if you care to take over the matter, you may feel free. Leave a note to that effect on the anon's page if you do William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Indulge my curiosity, if you please. Why would you deliberately set a page protection in violation of the WP:PROT policy's instructions that "protection should be timed so as to not exceed the length of the block"? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point on the policy needing updating, Kralizec, although WP:IAR probably applies in this unusual case. I put a comment here: in this case where the IP is a school then stopping the IP editing its own talk page by a semi-protect but allowing it to edit other pages after a block period seems like the logical way forward if the main problem is the IP blanking the talk page. Indeed policy would seem to suggest that if the block is just to protect from the IP blanking the talk page the block could be lifted as soon as the talk page was protected> --BozMo talk 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

I thought I let you know that this disruptive user has another sock, actually it is the original IP address this person used at the very beginning of all this disruptions at Rebecca Quick, 76.114.133.44 (talk · contribs). I filed a report on this in the past linking 76.114.133.44 as the sockpuppet of 162.6.97.3. Also not that it’s really any of my business, but I noticed you put an indefinite block on 162.6.97.3, but a one-week block on 68.50.128.120, which is the same person. I was just wondering...how is it that this person you indefinately block is allowed to edit a week from now on another IP, essentially evading the indefinate block you imposed on him? KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I gather the indefinite block was a slip of the mouse, IPs should rarely be indefinitely blocked. –xeno 13:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've reset it to 3h as of now William M. Connolley (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether indefinite semiprotection of the IP user talk page was what you intended either: ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I'll leave it for now William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As Quick as that

Can we break bread now and unfreeze the page for editing?

162.6.97.3 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you prepared to stop edit warring there? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued edit wrring over at Paul Krugman

Hi, when I went back to look at it today, I was a bit disappointed to see that edit warring continues over the Paul Krugman article. Perhaps a freeze or the imposition of a 1RR regime would be in order? BTW, I haven't touched it in the last 3 days. LK (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we're going to work it out among ourselves over at Krugman. Will come back if negotiations breakdown. Thanks, LK (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tariqabjotu has protected the page. That's probably best, as my proposal for a 1RR regime seems to have broken down. LK (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Open to suggestions

I posted here a general request for suggestions for diffs to include as rebuttals in the subsections of my evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think my suggestion is: there are already quite enough words in this case. We hardly need more. It is good that you've finally read my evidence, though: well done. Why did you cut my quote short, though? (The obvious answer would be: because you agree that there are quite enough words already, but based on your other actions you don't seem to) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I had also read your evidence previously; it doesn't seem to me to contradict the earlier version of my evidence, but I'm equally happy with the current version of my evidence, so if you prefer it that's fine.

Not all of your comment is relevant to the point I'm making, but the diff is there in case people want to read the whole comment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Added to evidence

I'm sorry to bother you again, WMC, but it seems only fair to alert you that I've added to my evidence. Also, I'm not sure whether you noticed my question to you above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It was already obvious whose side you were on. A clarification wasn't needed William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

An anon IP has started disruptive editing here and here. Just thought I should let you know. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User identity.

Hi, a user Clockback User_talk:Clockback is continually refering to himself as a British newspaper columnist, Peter Hitchens he is currently signing his posts as.. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback. Here ] in this reply to his comment I have asked him to please confirm that he is this person or to stop doing it, and he has asked how this would be possible, could you advise him over this issue for me, please. Although he is avoiding the user name Peter Hitchens I still feel there is a issue here that requires resolving. Let me know what you think, appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries William, JC is looking into it for me. Best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Block of Abd

This block of Abd: "08:21, August 9, 2009 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs | block) blocked Abd (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Violation of ban at t:Cold Fusion) (unblock | change block)" is completely out of line. Not only are you highly involved with this user and have history with him, you are currently the two primary parties in an ongoing arbcase. This is a clear abuse of admin rights and I will be proposing a temp desyssop pending the final decision in the case. While I am still looking into the details to confirm this, it appears the one month ban by Heimstern had ended and Abd had just ended his self ban of the CF article. If you carry out any further actions re Abd, I will block you and may ban you from the case. I will also present this block as evidence in the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes WMC, you are far too enmeshed with this user, and should back well away. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. Verbal chat 14:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So Rlevse, your mind is already made up on how you're going to vote on the case, eh? And I thought you were one of the more reasonable arbs. You sure showed me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

By his definition he's now involved. Very poor. Verbal chat 15:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a lot of confidence in the new arbcom, that they would be more clueful and less heavy-handed than previous incarnations. Looks like there are different faces but nothing else ever changes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact this years arbcom is entremly intolerant of admin error or admins taking a stand against fringe tinfoil hattery. Look at the way they dealt with the JZG case when they community overwhelmingly endorsed the view that there was no signifciant case to answer, one admonismet for an action endorsed by the community and we are one clueful admin less. Brilliant. I expect Rlevse to recuse from this case now. Spartaz 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if they were under directions from Jimbo to crack the whip on admins. Sure as hell glad I gave up the badge last year -- doing hours of volunteer work and putting up with continual abuse only to be slapped in the face for it must get old after a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)What strikes me as most surprising here, is that Rlevse, despite being an active arb on this case, apparently has no idea about what the basics are (no matter whether the decision was right or not), to the extent that it indicates that he hasn't even read the brief... That's even more surprising considering that the case was supposed to have ended yesterday. (i also wonder why wizardman is suddenly active/voting on this case, despite the the arb list showing him to be inactive) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you find it "surprising" that an arb would act without being fully informed? Are you new around here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman's status hadn't been updated from inactive to active. Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's very unusual for parties to block each other in the middle of a case. WMC should back away for the time being. If Adb violates his bans, that should be cited as evidence against him and another admin can deal with it in the meantime. Cool Hand Luke 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the aggressive nature of his word here, would it be unusual for Rlevse to NOT recuse from the case? Minkythecat (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be unusual. Arbs can do whatever they want. There's probably arguments between themselves behind the scenes, but once one of them does something publicly the Blue Wall goes up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You should not have blocked Abd when you're both parties to the same arbitration case. I haven't looked at the evidence, but the evidence is irrelevant when something like this happens. Since you're both parties, you're not "uninvolved", and therefore can't use that title. You should not have blocked Abd, period. I have explained myself in further detail at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision#"Temp desyssop of William M. Connolley" motion (Mythdon's comment). If you wish to reply to me, please respond there. --Mythdon 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

@R: While I am still looking into the details... I think it would have been an excellent idea for you to have been sure of the details before acting. When you are sure, do let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time that Abd decides to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man you have to resist the temptation of hitting that block button and instead post a diff in the case pages. More productive in the mid/long term. Also, you should make a compromise not to block Abd anymore during the case (and then not block him if he does something carefully designed to prompt a block from you, like in the first block). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not condoning what Abd did, but you, WMC, should know not to block someone when you're a primary named party taking action against another primary named party in an open ongoing arbitration case where you have a history with each other that you are very involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an answer to the question you're avoiding William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Given your comments on here, ie threat to unilaterally ban WMC from the case - and isn't that ironic, since it appears Abd wants to claim WMC acted that way - will you recuse? Yes or no? Minkythecat (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest discussion is moved to case pages

Someone has said it would be better to keep all the discussion in one place. Can I suggest that the arbitration case pages are a better place to discuss what happened here? I've said so at other user talk pages as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?

190.25.102.181 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you repeating the AN3 report? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Miss the page. Any way, note that before your protection, it was collapsed the post providing a reliable source according to wikipedia policies; a source (Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47) which states Aktion T4 was euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4 thus contrary to that which is claimed in this section of the article: Action_T4#T4_and_euthanasia. why?

comment made by 190.27.96.251 (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear that you are missing the point. I'm not going to get involved in the content of that page. My suggestion to you would be to get an account; failing that, you could stop edit warring on the talk page so it can be unprotected William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wurble?

"Tes extended discussion finding is especially germane" - either there is something wrong with your writing or my international language is not up where I hoped it to be...I don't get that sentence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

s/es/he/. I think. I'll check William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Judge Dredd

If you think counts as a personal attack for likening you to Judge Dredd then tell me and I will withdraw it. However I thought you migh appreciate it. --BozMo talk 08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fair enough (you're pursuing an interesting line there). Can I have the motorbike too? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Had never heard of Judge Dredd. Now why did the title Mutants in Mega-City One make me think immediately of Misplaced Pages? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we've mined a rich vein here. I can feel a cabal logo coming on... William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking Judge Judy... much more fearsome. I'm not sure if my cabal membership is official yet, as he only states it in a "response" I haven't seen posted anywhere official. Verbal chat 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The cabal welcomes new members. All you need is basic sanity and a willingness to shoot from the hip (oh, and the sekret handshake, of course, but we don't talk about that) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You talk waaaay too much to be likened to Dredd :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But he never removes his helmet. Let's hope there isn't a block war. Verbal chat 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about Martintg edit warring

Hi, William M. Connolley. I have a question regarding edit warring blocks–and I thought you'd be the appropriate person to ask, because you've blocked me for breaking the 3RR rule before and you've dealt with Martintg as well.

Offliner and I say Martintg has clearly been edit warring, but Spartaz doesn't see this as a violation of WP:3RR because Martintg didn't revert to the same version each time he undid an edit by four others in 24 hours. I've left this up on the noticeboard –imho, I think it was inappropriately closed, given what reverting is about–and have placed my request fully elaborated on the user talk page at , although Spartaz isn't online to help understand the rationale of this.

What's your take here? Because if there's no violation, I would appreciate understanding what the difference in this case is that distinguishes it from, say, my own block (I myself never reverted to the same version four times–consider the previous versions here).

Thanks!

- PasswordUsername (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the diffs again for convenience:

1. PasswordUsername asks not to delete synth tag
2. Martintg reverts (1st revert)
3. Anarchangel edits
4. Martintg reverts (2nd revert)
5. Russavia takes out
6. Martintg reverts (3rd revert)
7. PasswordUsername inserts info based on added material of US support of Pol Pot as Cambodian representative at the United Nations
8. Martintg undoes this, adds his own take (4th revert). Offliner (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Without making any comment on the AN3 report, I can say that you have presented 4R here by Marting. Also, to break 3RR does not require the same material to be reverted - as I recall, this is explcitly stated in the policy. Furthermore, Marting has failed to mark any of his edits as reverts, which I would regard as a factor contributing to a longer block for any moderately experienced editor. You may point people at this text if you wish William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm appalled at the level of admin shopping exhibited by both PasswordUsename and Offliner, unhappy with the result on User talk:Spartaz, they come here to wikilawyer their case. A revert is defined as "a the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously". In no way can this alleged 4th revert that PasswordUsername cites be construed as revert, it is normal development, not restoring text to a previous version, in this case aligning and improving the text (made in conjunction with this, why hasn't he cited this change as a revert too?) to what the source actually says:"At the time of the invasion, the United States was concerned with improving relations with China, which was the principal backer of the Khmer Rouge, as a way of bringing pressure to bear on the Soviet Union to be more amenable to U.S. interests. Moreover, the United States, along with other states in the region, found it difficult to accept without protest the invasion of one state by another, fearing that a dangerous precedent could be set. Incredible as it may seem, when controversy arose over which delegation to seat in the fall 1979 United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York—the ousted Pol Pot regime or the Vietnamese backed regime then in control of the country—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China argued strongly in favor of the Pol Pot regime. The dispute had to be resolved by committee, in which the United States bowed to Chinese and ASEAN interests and voted to seat the Pol Pot regime. The United Stated did, at least, go on to claim that the issue of seating a delegation was purely technical and legal, and that its support of seating the Pol Pot regime did not imply approval of that regime's policies.", i.e. China is the principal backer of the Khmer Rouge, and the US action did not imply approval of the regime's policies. --Martintg (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You can be as appalled as you like. I'm offering my opinion on a technical matter, as far as I'm concerned. By 4th "revert" I take it you mean . This is without a doubt a revert: you have reverted (removed) the "US" of US-backed. I notice that you have offered no defence of your failure to mark your 3 (uncontested) reverts as such. Please either do so or admit your fault William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen editors mark their reverts as revert in the edit summary, is that policy? Is is also policy or personal opinion that if editors don't do it they can be more severly blocked? if it is could I have a link to it please? Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you've never seen it done you haven't looked very hard. Have another go then come back if you must William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I might be stupid sometimes but I am not blind and I have never seen it done, would you please provide a link to support your claims? Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For all I know you are stupid, though I'm not sure why you bring the issue up, I haven't accused you of it. I'm accusing you of not looking very hard. If you won't trust me, go find yourself some experienced editor that you do trust and ask them. Then come back William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding perhaps like broken record, but did I understand your position correctly - you're saying that last change in edit chain "" -> "US-backed" -> "Chinese-backed (+ref)" qualifies as a revert? I have understood that revert meant changing something back to some previous version (either completely or partially), however in current article I'm unable to find version which would include this "Chinese". I understand that in this situation this is mere technicality and I have no plans to engage to this confrontation, my question is not meant as advocating or wikilawyering, rather I'm really confused about policy. Põhja Konn (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

Please can you let me know how I can make a complaint against an admin persdon such as yourself. What would be the official procedure? For details of my complaint please see my talk page. Thank you. UkFaith (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to join the queue, get in line at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop and related pages. If its a 3RR complaint, then t:] might do. Or you could join the fun at WP:ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just read your talk page. My advice to you is, don't bother, your complaint is baseless. If you're interested in harmonious editing advice, please ask on William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The user got off his block and immediately reverted again and muddied the waters on the talk page. I have made all my reasons clear and he is not interested in dialogue. Mitsube (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is completely untrue..it is you who are not interested in dialogue and have not been since the beginning. I have asked you at least three times to discuss and you ignored all three times.

I have worded the section exactly as it was before you deleted it. You have not given any evidence to dispute the section or any points within it. UkFaith (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well my edits are now working but my ban was for longer than 24 hours so I think its fair for me to have that addressed.

And user Mitsube deleted an entire section and has not been playing 'fair' since it was reverted. I am guessing it was he that alerted you to my 3RR rule infringement as part of his game plan. I really am new to Misplaced Pages. What are you meant to do in this situation? UkFaith (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations chaps you're both blocked for 24h. See your talk pages William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Actually M only gets 1h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For your pleasure

I'd almost forgotten about this little compilation that I started a while ago. It seems especially appropriate lately. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Future MD 217

Has returned under another account as MoniqueLGay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is back at her self-promotion. See deleted contributions. She is also active under the two IPs that she had used previously: 68.42.244.36 (talk · contribs) and 98.209.145.241 (talk · contribs). Can you please handle the blocking? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Left a message. Will block if required William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Proposed decision

On the basis of your proposed decision, you clearly believe that bans (from one or a few pages) can only be imposed by community consensus or other involved process. Everyday experience demonstrates that blocks (from the entirety or wikipedia) can routinely be made by individual amdins on the basis of no consultation whatsoever. Can you resolve this apparent disparity? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrators have been given the discretion to block within the limits of the blocking policy. There are certain limited reasons for which someone can be blocked, various conventions on how long blocks should be (mostly not written down) and conventions about warning users, informing them about blocks and so forth. The policy represents consensus distilled over time concerning what is or isn't appropriate use of the blocking tool. This is not the case for bans: there's no settled set of circumstances in which a ban might be appropriate, about the scope for bans, the duration of bans, recording and notification requirements, and so on. Considered against blocks, bans are comparatively new and rare, especially topic or page bans, so these conventions have not developed to the same extent.

I would agree with you, based on my own and anecdotal experience, that it's often the case that some administrators exercise much more discretion than they are entitled to under the policy. Indefinite blocks of new accounts in particular seem to be handed out like candy. I would like to have more time to look at ways to address this, or failing that more cases to be brought before us concerning these issues.

I also agree that it would be useful for administrators to be able to impose bans in some circumstances, as an alternative to blocking (in much the same way that semi-protection is a more refined alternative in appropriate circumstances to full protection). That's not where the policy is right now, however (written or unwritten). --bainer (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So an admin who wants to stay out of trouble should block instead of using a page ban, since there's no policy on the latter? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is also how I read it. Editors can say "don't add that spam link again or you will be blocked!", admins can say "don't add that spam link again or you will be blocked!", but editors and admins can not say "don't edit that page again", but admins can then either protect the page, or block the editor. Still, it would be the less intrusive way. --Dirk Beetstra 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed be less intrusive in many cases. But you and I liking it doesn't make it current policy. --bainer (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

One might assume that Arbcom would encourage nuanced solutions to difficult situations even if they aren't spelled out in article 4, section b, subparagraph (vi) of current policy, rather than of the blunt instrument of a block. One would, apparently, be mistaken. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd also like clarification how "Polls are boring and inconclusive, especially when people start arguing over which is valid. The solution which will please no-one is: User:Hipocrite and User:Abd are both banned from editing cold fusion..." is fundamentally different from "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing." (from Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing: "their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article"). Is it in the wording? --Dirk Beetstra 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So long as the conduct is blockable conduct, yes. Remember though that even in the absence of a policy allowing admins discretion to ban, an admin could negotiate a ban with a user as an alternative to blocking them, if they thought that would be useful. So you could imagine a situation where a user had broken the three-revert rule on an article, and an admin might put it to them that they should submit to a ban from the page for a few days, for example, instead of being blocked from the whole site for 24 hours. --bainer (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)