Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Total Ignorent boy (talk | contribs) at 10:03, 30 April 2008 (→Komodo Lover...again.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RFA Thanks

My dear Wikipedian EdJohnston,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Thank you and good day.

MassResistance

It's not like it's undergoing a massive edit war. If that happens, when can re-address it, I don't think we need to leave the 3RR notice open. Corvus cornix_talk 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Is there a clear consensus to revert all the the bot edits at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI_is_locked? I have a script now that will do it, but I want to make sure. MBisanz 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for this problem, I'm the owner of User:AkhtaBot, i checked it, and i found it known problem, here and here, i will not run python bot on templates until fixing this bug, soory again. i noticed that all the editing are reverting, so i don't think there is any thing i can do. can you unblock my bot now! --Bassem JARKAS (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You :-) --Bassem JARKAS (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

childrens rights

its really a minor issue that i noticed when looking ato ne of a user's diffs . it was intended to be a joke, but i was just warning the user not to make offense like that just in case someone gets upset since we dont want to have a row over something sily like that. Smith Jones (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the comment was made toward the subject of the COI case, and the diff was one of the ones cited in the firs t initial posting on the COI case Smith Jones (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think FreeChild created a diff across too many versions of Dougs Tech's talk page. How about: . Is that one OK? EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

yes i agree that one is much better, while the initial one was offensive and semingly irrelevent. Smith Jones (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, thanks for catching that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what happened there, but thanks for fixing it. This process is already messy enough without tech glitches that make me look bad. Thanks again for the fix. • Freechild'sup? 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

H. Paul Shuch at WP:COI/N

Hi EdJohnston, thanks for the note. It seems as if there are two kinds of biography articles in the Category:SETI - people I had heard of without reading the article (Arthur C. Clarke, Freeman Dyson, Drake, Carl Sagan, etc.) and people that seem even less notable than Shuch. I am not an expert on SETI or engineering, so I would be glad to get community input via an AfD (or perhaps an RfC). The advantage of an AfD is that it is taken more seriously and gets more feedback. Since Shuch wrote that his bio at the SETI League website was written by someone else (though doubtless with his input), there are also potential copyright violation concerns. Should the article be stubbified before AfD or only if it does not go to AfD? Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go to AfD as it is now, so people can get the full effect. If the article is kept, we might benefit from the AfD comments as to what is most important. Since SETI is a quasi-scientific field we could also search in places like Google Scholar to see if people are citing his work. I agree that Category:SETI is not all important people, but you might find somebody in there who you DO think deserves an article, who is like a journeyman worker in the field; Shuch tells a good story but it is hard to find articles that actually write about him. Suppose we had to build his entire article out of direct quotes about him from other publications, how large would it be? EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I am almost done here for now, so I will list it at AfD within the next day. Ruhrfisch _><>° 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is now listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/H. Paul Shuch Ruhrfisch _><>° 12:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is looking like a keep with lots of pruning recommended. I will wait until the AfD closes then edit out fluff and try to avoid copyvio from his SETI League bio too. Ruhrfisch _><>° 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the article needs to be trimmed but I have little stomach for such work. What do you think should be done? Sorry this is taking so long, Ruhrfisch _><>° 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See a proposal for how I would fix the article and eliminate the tags at Talk:H. Paul Shuch#Proposed rewrite. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently unblocked User talk:Clarkerst is still puzzling

Hello Stifle. Recently you acceded to a request to lift this user's indefinite block, after I responded to his request at WP:RPP to unprotect his Talk page. Since that time he has got his account renamed to User:I Love Editing, per a request at WP:CHU. His further activities since then appear to include repeated attempts to delete his (successful) name change request from WP:CHU (for example , and later as an IP) and to blank various warnings that people leave him on his Talk. Do you think that our hopes of his reform could have been too optimistic? EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no rule against blanking warnings. (It's considered as an acknowledgement of having read the warning.) I'd watch for a while to see if he's interested in serious contributions. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP

I've just started paying attention to the WP:BLP/N after something came up at 3RR that led me there. The BLP/N looked as if it could use more help. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Tylman

Re the WP:COIN closure: I'm not sure editors below are satisfied with the neutrality of the current version of the article is strictly accurate. I took the consensus to be that some cleanup in that area remains to be done. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed

and I hope you're good! - I know you posted in the recent 'policy question' thread at the CoI noticeboard - and I wonder if you might have time or energy to take a look here for related discussion - your input would probably be very helpful - and would certainly be appreciated! thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

American Apparel

Hey Ed,

Thanks for the note, really appreciate you noticing my work. I would love to give it another look. There were still some sections I thought could be expanded on and others that needed to be cut. The thing about their own material is that when I was googling for American Apparel articles I noticed that they hosted reprints of many pieces that otherwise would have been stuck behind paywalls. Clearly there is some COI there but since many of them included negative press I thought it was an ok balance.

As for the investigation, I went through and pretty thoroughly sponged out all the edits by the people that Wikidemo tagged in the report. I may have missed some though, I can't be sure. With this Woody Allen lawsuit I imagine that they are laying low but they could be back any time. In my opinion, the SSP has served its purpose.

Before I get into it, what do you think needs to be messed with?

I was going to track down some royalty-free pictures but I don't know how

TheRegicider (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice response you gave on noticeboard

That was a very nice response you gave to Reenactorjohn at 3RR. You managed to shift things from confrontation to friendly helping. Well done. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

my bot Vina-iwbot

Hi, could you unblock my bot User:Vina-iwbot? I narrowed the problem down to the bot removing links between pages that are/seems-to-be in different namespaces, i.e. regular pages linking to categories, or a page linking to another page with ":" in the name. I'm talking with the developer of the m:interwiki.py about this. I'm a little surprised that other interwiki both operators haven't ran into this yet. I'm using the standard version without any local modifications. In the mean time, I'll run the bot without the "-force" mode so it will not remove any links. Thanks. --Vina (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Vina, I have unblocked the bot. Do you have a method of restoring the interwikis that were incorrectly removed? Another bot recently encountered a bug in interwiki.py, and it was discussed here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that can be done now besides manually checking and reverting changes which is what I did with my edits. I just go through the bot's contributions and look at entries which are removal of links. The problems seems to be concentrated in 3 languages: eo - which has a lot of math related topics in the wikipedia namespace, es & pt which has all of their list of xyz with title "Anexo:". The es/pt change seems to be fairly recent, where a lot of links that used to direct to something like "Lista xzy" is now a redirect. I contacted one of the main developers for the bot, yurik. Hopefully he can come up with something. At the mean time, the operators can run the bot without the "-force" option so it does not remove any links. --Vina (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sir Arthur Clarke Award

Well, there is Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, which is a Featured List. That award only has one prize, though. I think that other than that one, the articles on science/engineering awards are in a pretty poor state at the moment. Even Nobel Prize in Physics has lots of tags scattered around the article. Mike Peel (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "stale"

I just thought of a definition of "stale" with respect to 3RR reports, for example this one. If enough time has passed such that if the user were to revert once more now then that revert would not, in combination with previous reverts, constitute a 3RR violation, then the report is "stale" according to this definition. One could argue that in that case no block or page-protection is necessary; since the next revert (if any) would not be a violation, there is no reason to prevent it. I don't know whether anyone else uses this definition. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and ...

Thanks for the tip off and, just out of interest, why did you give me the info? Is there a group of admins (I assume you are one) who patrol 3rr accusations and give helpful hints or was it just a happy chance? Either way I am grateful for a friendly face. :) Abtract (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

I appreciate it. I am always nervous having to report an admin, and this is the second time with this particular admin's behavior. - Arcayne () 04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

More thanks - MigrationWatch UK

Thank you for the positive response about my posting, this is an extremely challenging article to balance. Regretably I'm going to lose my internet connection for some time in the very near future so I'm hoping others will look a bit closer at this organisation and add a pinch of salt accordingly. I was pleased with this news , even if in itself I couldn't see how you could work it into the article directly. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Marchais

in the event you didn't watchlist it, I responded TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on the awb approval! Prashanthns (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Eric Greif

I wanted to thank you for your words of encouragement. I find it incredible that, minutes after Dissolve made his warning on my talk page (and then creating the inquiry into 'Eric Greif'), Single-purpose account Jackmantas was created and began taking apart the Eric Greif article line-by-line. This whole thing seems like some sort of bizarre vendetta and not proper Wiki good faith. Thanks again, A Sniper (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Jodhaa Akbar

Hello EdJohnson. I removed my previous message cause I thought you were already done for today.

I will definitely do that and ask Blg. But he was blocked for sockpuppeting, not edit warring. Once he is back today, he will surely revert to his own version, a version which is incohorent, full of errors, POV. I had copyedited this version (see my long analysis on the talk page), neutrlised it, but he came back and started reverting again, despite being aware of two other editors who agree with me. I'll definitely try to solve this issue, but before that, please protect the article, because there will be no end to that. Regards, Shahid • 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would wait to hear back from Blnguyen. I informed him about the situation. At a minimum, I think that an admin should warn this editor but my brain is not clear enough this morning to figure out exactly what that admin should say. Since the dispute has been running since 18 February, I don't see how a short period of full protection would change things much. The article is quite active, so a long period of full protection would be unwise. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's exactly the problem! Blnguyen is not really familiar with the dispute itself. I asked him to use his checkbuster and find out whether it was indeed him. It was clearly him. Now he is back, and as I already experienced back in time, he will be reverting it constantly. The block is important right now, regardless of what Blnguyen's reply is. Please protect it as of now. Shahid • 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The war continues!! And very interesting who this Hindhawk (talk · contribs) is, whose only edits on Misplaced Pages include edits to Jodhaa Akbar, reverting my edits! Please protect it. Shahid • 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll have to ask some second party opinions for the matter. Posted the above message to Blng as well. Thanks again, Shahid • 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Ed. Also, I think Hindhawk is Itihaaskar. See my report at my talk. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Block evader

Since you issued the block for User:AgntOrange, just an fyi as I'm pretty sure its the same person. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for AgntOrange. EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AgntOrange also posts anonymously as 71.56.158.17, though not since he was blocked from posting.--Edgewise (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the update on Blist 14 It is me i think (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

browsers

you removed the info I added for the epiphany web-browser. The source is reliable - its the official ANNOUNCE maillist which is used by the maintainers of the project to report news to the users. It cannot get more reliable than that. Plus it was covered already by some websites. Never mind that the date of the letter is the first of april - it wasn't a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.199.148 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't usually accept Usenet or forum postings as evidence. If nobody else has seen fit to comment yet, we can wait for something more definite. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Sure thing. I did, initially, impose a voluntary article ban on any chess articles he was adding his books into as a part of the mediation and an alternative to blocking. I'd be willing to assist in guiding it in a supportive role but I think it'd be more effective if he agreed and was compliant to it. Then it'd show that he understands that there is a problem with him adding his own materials in. What'd you think? Thanks for the message, friend. Scarian 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I think I can help you guys out here. I have written a total of 7 chess books, all of which are tournament books. Four of them are about the Melody Amber chess tournament, where consensus seems to have emerged. One is not relevant to en:Misplaced Pages. The remaining two might, in theory, at some point in the future be added, but chances are slim because the relevant articles don't exist yet and I don't have the material or the desire to write them. So you are really shooting a bug with a cannon.

Second, however, I find your entire approach toward me extremely hostile and not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that says you cannot refer to your own work, and absolutely no reason whatsoever to block me. The only problem here is that certain other users, who never before have shown an interest in chess articles, wish to see my name deleted from the internet. You cannot hold me responsible for their actions and abuse. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is guided by consensus. If a number of users propose a strong argument (in this case, neutrality/COI) against you having your works included in an article, which is considered consensus, then you will not be allowed to include your books. That is how Misplaced Pages works if there no specific guideline/policy (Misplaced Pages doesn't have "rules" per se) to settle it.

Editors do not need a background in any sort of topic to be able to make a decision about an article inside of that topic. So any sort of dismissal of an editors opinion simply because you believe them to have no background in it is simply discriminatory and that is going against the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

Either a) You stop adding in your own books (Which is considered a potential violation of WP:PROMOTION) and stop editing chess articles in such a way. Or b) You agree to allow a larger discussion to take place so as consensus can be achieved. Scarian 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me where I tried to overrule consensus. You keep making accusations without backing them up.

I have initiated several attempts to start a larger discussion, but I am still waiting for someone to join in. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert Ed! Appreciated :) WLU (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I may do that instead and I'm undecided as yet - if Io lets it go, so will I, so all my work may be for naught. Hopefully actually, but I kinda doubt it. WLU (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, looks like I'm going ahead. Will RFC/U instead, possibly tomorrow or Monday. In the meantime, I'll be building a case here. Feel free to add if you'd like, please separate into your own section though. WLU (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing

In order to use the "notes" and "references" combination, go to Misplaced Pages:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references. I normally put in all of the normal citations before applying that template. To make it simpler, I use Microsoft Word's "find all" and "replace all" functions to instant swap out the beginning "ref" labels for the "cite" labels and then fill in the end wiki parenthesis after. However, if you have the patience, you can fill it all out in the beginning and save yourself the effort. Once you get the hang of it, it starts to go faster. I hope this helps you in the future. Its something that is being promoted for Feature Articles with many citations in order to make them "cleaner" to read. Happy editing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went through and caught another error in the citation piping. I checked them all again and they seem to work both ways up and down. Thanks for going through and fixing some of the others. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

HP SPaM

Do you think it's ok now then? I'm not going to check all those refs now lol, what made me very dubious is there was not really anything mentioning HP SPaM on google news or google. And some of the refs didn't say what the article said they said.:) Not sure how easily people can check a lot of these refs. However, it does look better and I'm glad to see the logo back- wonder why it was deleted in the past. Merkin's mum 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Me again- I'm not an expert oon how reporting COI etc works- yes I'm happy for it to be taken off the COI noticeboard of course, but I think the tag should stay at the top of the article, at least for a while, to stop anything creeping back in. Merkin's mum 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me out with a dispute resolution experiment? There are some editors that have been on ANI a lot recently (you may recall a "block-shopping" thread that you participated in), and I'm trying to get a handle on the whole thing, placing editing restrictions per Digwuren, and trying to set up a central location for discussion. I've been having relative success so far, but would appreciate another admin in the mix, and I've always had great respect for your level head in these kinds of situations. Would you be interested in joining in? If so, check out User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, and the related talkpage. If not, no worries, I'll keep asking around! Thanks, Elonka 13:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I added my name to the list of admins, though I don't know how active I will be there. I hope the experiment works! The task looks like it could be labor-intensive for admins. It may appear that some editors should be given long-term article bans from all Eastern European articles. If this checkuser case is an example of the general attitudes in this area, it's discouraging. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a couple of them seem to be heading for longterm bans, but I'm trying to give them every opportunity to "go straight". And no worries on the time requirements, just pop in as you can. Often I just find myself playing the role of mentor, as I instruct them on various Misplaced Pages dispute resolution processes. So if you see a thread where you think you can be helpful, go ahead and post a note. And if you see someone that needs to be blocked, go right ahead. You can tell on the mainpage which ones are already under editing restrictions, so you have pretty wide latitude. --Elonka 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(followup) Hiya, to try and reduce the time-intensive nature of things, I've created an "admin log" at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Admin notes. What do you think of this idea? --Elonka 13:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I notice that you may be wanting some reviews of your admin actions, and I'll try to contribute when I can. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just one non-urgent one at the moment, mostly as a test case. And if you can think of any other ways to streamline the system, I'm listening. Over at the WorkGroup wiki (we're looking for new members, is that something you'd be interested in joining?) one of the suggestions is that any admin action should require approval of at least 3 other admins to ensure consensus, but I personally think that's impossible. I understand the need to review of controversial admin decisions, but I think any tools we come up with, they're more likely to be under used than abused.  :) Anyway, let me know, Elonka 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EIW

Thanks for your note. I read the rationale you pointed out and I don't understand it either. I left a comment on John Broughton's discussion page about what I was trying to do. My edit was reverted by him. --DRoll (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Block Log

Thank you for your prompt action with regard to the vandalism coming from 74.42.242.106 -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I am not sure yet why is it impossible for you to accept that I am not part of CAMERA group - if indeed such group exists. I must say you are not the only one: I have received an e-mail from someone asking me to get them on board CAMERA payroll. I wish I knew how to do that but I can't since I am not part of CAMERA. Anyhow please chack the evidence again. The COI case you mentioned has nothing to do with me. I edit wkipedia on my wown and never edited anything that has to do with CAMERA. If you bother to udnerdtand my political view you would see that CAMERA are far more right winged and exterme than I am. Zeq (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request of edit of protected pages

I need two protected pages edited in order to repair the syntax for the template {{shortcut}}.

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working

{{shortcut|]}} --> {{shortcut|WP:CFD/W}}

Misplaced Pages:Improve this article about Misplaced Pages

{{shortcut|]}} --> {{shortcut|WP:ITAAW}}

These pages appear in the maintenance category CAT:SHORTFIX. Thanks in advance. --DRoll (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was fast! --DRoll (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection of International Sahaja Public School

Just a question, learning some information here. You fully protected this page instead of blocking User:Simon D M and User:Freelion, as they were in obvious violation of WP:3RR. Dusti 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article at the request of User:Will Beback, who is a very experienced editor. It is better if you take your questions to him. It is now (a) too late for a 3RR on the earlier edits, (b) somebody needs to actually make a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that its too late now but you were the one who took the action by protecting the page. I was just curious if there was an underlying reason that I don't know about. Dusti 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Full protection is sometimes used to force contending editors to work for consensus on the Talk page. Even a 3RR block is at most a temporary solution, since it is usually quite short. I see no Talk discussion since 18 April so I guess there is no progress yet. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sumerophile sock pocket found

It appears that User:Nicklausse (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Nicklausse) , is a socket pocket of Sumerophile, please verify this, he is editing the same ways as Sumerophile, and same pages he is vandalizing. 76.238.245.180 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please file a report at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets if you are concerned. The complaint would have more credibility if it came from an account with a track record. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I believe you've just met the infamous Ararat Arev. who has 80 banned sock puppets to his name (and counting..): The same person who launched a personal attack on my talk page just yesterday: ? It has almost the same anonymous IP address. The Admins all know him sadly as you can sadly see from 2006: Regards, Artene50 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Yankees10

I just wanted to see if I could persuade you to lift the block on Yankees10. He has not asked me to do this in any shape or form, nor has anyone else. I know Yankees10 violated 3RR and he made a mistake. But Yankees10 is a good editor that adds a lot to Misplaced Pages, and this weekend in particular he has added seemingly infinite and invaluable information regarding the NFL Draft. I think you can be sure he's going to stay out of trouble if you unblock him and I think his contributions outweigh his minor infraction. Just my two cents.►Chris Nelson 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but people would think that the 3RR system is toothless after he skirted the edge of the rules on more than one article. If he has important knowledge that should go into some of the articles, he could always add it to his own Talk page (which he can still edit during the block). Then you or anyone else who thinks the info is correct could add it to the articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unblocking him would only give him the idea that he can do whatever he wants as long as he has the right alliances, and this would only promote edit warring and disruptive behavior when we're trying to reduce it. I've personally never seen somebody so blatently violate the 3RR rule in such combative ways on four pages at once over a 24 hr period. They are textbook 3RR violations, he was warned, and he knew this would happen when he did it. Not to mention the aggrevating comments. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Loner

Would it please be possible to do a page protection on Mr. Loner's talk page, preferably to the last revision NOT made by him? He's just going to keep blanking it otherwise. Komodo Lover always tends to be very disruptive on his account talk pages even when blocked from editing Misplaced Pages itself. CBFan (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the 3RR noticeboard

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Neil Brown reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 31 hours ) Note that I also listed diffs of reverts by Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who filed the report; that user has not been blocked. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was all set to follow up, but Seicer beat me to it! I hope you have a plan for automating yourself; this must take a lot of work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I found out how to renew the computer account on which I did that one automated edit; so we'll see! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)