This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 08:19, 13 August 2009 (→The <div> tag and Cascading Style Sheets: i'm not going to get round to it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reverts can be removal of material as well as addition. In this case, the "US" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explanation. Põhja Konn (talk) 06:07, 13 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)

Workshop comments

I saw that you regretted that I hadn't commented on the workshop page. I've just made a couple of comments where I thought it was appropriate. Dunno if it's what you want, but there you are. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that (I haven't read them yet, so I'm going to trust you that I will appreciate them :-). Sorry you got dragged into this at ANI and I wouldn't have dragged you back in had I not thought it important William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)