Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:09, 8 November 2010

If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).

Archives

User Talk:Looie496/Archive 1 User Talk:Looie496/Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

67.176.220.219

• 67.176.220.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed you blocked this editor for warring on Fred Singer, which is in the climate change topic. Looking at his edits it looks like he's been around for a while on the same IP and his principal interests are climate change. Perhaps we should treat him as we would treat a registered editor, in which case it would be as well to warn him about the climate change discretionary sanctions. --TS 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Done and logged; thanks for the suggestion. Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your hard work not even a month into your adminship, especially at WP:AN/3 I award you the admin's barnstar. Secret 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dang beat me to it! I was just coming over to giver the same award for the same reason! Keep it up! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

CSI needs to be re-protected (at least *I* think so)

Almost the minute the protection expired on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, 24.253.41.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (who JUST got off a six month block for persistant vandalism involving WP:OR new characters, blog sourcing and generalized fancruft) and a couple of others are right back in there messing it up. I have been trying under my username, but also my IP address at work, fighting vandals and those who refuse to edit Misplaced Pages by the rules in the CSI, Law and Order and NCIS shows - so that some of them might eventually reach GA status. Unfortunately, the IP I've listed above and others like them are wearing me down, and I've about had it as an editor whose work seems to be for nothing. Sorry, this isn't your fault, so I apologise for bitching. Anyway...would you be so kind as to check & see if you agree that CSI:Crime Scene Investigation does need protecting again? I tried appealing to the person who blocked the above IP user, but they say this is just someone who 'doesn't understand the rules' (my paraphrase) very well - but if you look at their talk page - it's fairly obvious they do not care to learn either, as it's all the same stuff in the same articles that got them blocked in the first place after much counseling and warnings. Thanks for listening to the rant. I appreciate any time you might be able to devote to this, as I understand how busy Admins are. I thought about applying, but I know my Irish temper would get my adminship revoked within the first hour or so. As I guess you can tell, I'm one of those that "doesn't suffer fools gladly"! Thanks very much! Cheers, Trista Triste Tierra (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the one offending user. With that one out of the way, it might be easier to fix some of the other stuff being put up by IP Vandals and those who want Misplaced Pages to be a TV fansite rather than an encyclopaedic source about many things, including TV shows. Zen hugs to you! Trista Triste Tierra (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also be prepared to semi-protect the article for an extended period if it's necessary, but let's see how it goes. Looie496 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson editing conflicts

Hello, thank you for contacting me. The issue has arisen because in the previous intro edit, my facts were questioned. I was in the process of meticulously citing this material with references and then the section was not only drastically altered but the editor provided zero references and moved my previously entered cites around without thought to connectedness or relevancy. Then malik told me citations are "probably not needed" by str1977 via HIS work.

Here is the passage in question:

"U.S. Congressional records and FBI files reveal the reasoning behind his persecution centered not only on Robeson's beliefs in socialism but also his consistent work towards the liberation of the colonised peoples of Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and the Australian aborigines, his support of the International Brigades, his efforts to push for anti-lynching legislation and the racial integration of major league baseball among many other causes that openly challenged white supremacy on six continents."

Str1977 and Malik Shabazz have implied that the persecution points that I cited for Paul Robeson's persecution by the US power structure of the 1940's to 1960's are without historical merit or simply over exaggerated. I have gone through countless FBI files to prove them both incorrect with citations while str1977 has provided no cites or references for ANY of his edits. I acnnot edit in cites and references if my work is being reverted in real time.

I'm amazed now at the high standards that I was held to when first repairing and rebuilding the Paul Robeson article and sub-articles when I did the major revisions/creations on it. These rules are not be applied to Str1977. I never could have gotten away with such uncited material in the intro or elsewhere. I had editors breathing done my neck and tagging stuff as I was writing. Which is fine but why not others?

Writing a very large controversial article cannot be a flawless job and I have always maintained that I've made mistakes. But I DO cite my work and I make modifications as I did yesterday. I thought content on[REDACTED] research and references were cornerstone not editors ganging up on users. When str1977 comes through he deletes research citations and replaces it with zero cites please tell me why is that acceptable? Because he is an editor? I cannot find these answers in the rules. Thanks very much for your time.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be better to keep the discussion on your talk page -- but I'll just say that, while I haven't encountered Str1977, I have watched Malik edit for a long time and I have strong faith in his good intentions and expertise. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

FYI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's the diff

Hi, Looie496.
It worries me that previous WQA was closed after involved admin said that the case was already reported, but no diff. Things cannot be solved here on "honorable scouts word".
I've been looking through pages that link to "user:Ivan Štambuk" in namespace Misplaced Pages, search ANI archives, searchword="Štambuk".
My eyes "fell out" why I was searching through all those ANI's, but I haven't seen the case of Štambuk's "sod off".
Anyway, denigrating of opponents and opponents' sources (authors) continued ("nationalist fluff") "your own clique", "this nutjob + (name of scientist)" (violation of WP:BLP).... Kubura (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

About more notifications

Hi, Looie496.
You asked me here that if you have missed to notifiy anybody here Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings, to bring his/hers name to your intention.
I wrote a message to Kwamikagami . He's involved on several articles that are under the scope of WP:ARBMAC: Croatian language, Serbo-Croatian language, Croatian grammar, South Slavic languages, Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, {{South Slavic languages sidebar)...
E.g., here are inline citations needed; various topics are covered on various pages. Kwamikagami blatantly removed "citation needed" .
Kwamikagami also must be notified by you and his name also must be here Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings. The rules are equal for everyone. Bye, Kubura (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you show me even one example of incivility by kwami, I will notify him. Incivility means attributing bad motives to another editor or otherwise insulting another editor. It doesn't mean saying that an edit is wrong or doing things that another editor disagrees with. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please include Talk:Serbo-Croatian on your watchlist in relation to this issue. Some of the heat from the Talk:Croatian language discussion has migrated there. --Taivo (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All involved parties should be given a warning who participated, especially involved admins who were editing the blocked article even after the ban look at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Croatian_language&action=historysubmit&diff=392190211&oldid=391983057 Vodomar (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify: this is about incivility, nothing else. I don't know very much about Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, or their languages. I am not going to look at content disputes, edit warring, misuse of sources, or any of that. I can't, I don't understand the topic. All I intend to do is stop the pattern of editors insulting other editors. I don't have to understand the topic in order to recognize an insult. Looie496 (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See also this:here all of his insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.116.102 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PP

Can you reconsider full protection of Men who have sex with men until we reach a consensus? There was an edit war going on a little while ago. CTJF83 chat 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Always reluctant to grant a protection request from an editor who has just edited the page into their own preferred state. I'd be happy to revert your edit and then protect the page if that would be okay with you. Looie496 (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with BLP issues, over having the article in my state.... CTJF83 chat 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont know if this is still relevant but: There are heterosexual actors who appear in gay porn ... some men are pretty flexible. Gay-for-pay. Beyond that, though, there's the intricacy that "men who have sex with men" is not always taken literally either, as it's more of an identity than an orientation. —Soap— 00:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:68.167.83.210

Hi, you blocked User talk:68.167.83.210 for a week re vandalism of Toni Braxton. Having come off the block he/she has continued the vandalism. Please consider a longer/permanent block. Thanks Span (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it's just a single edit, I've only blocked for two weeks, and left a short explanation on the IP's talk page. For your information, we never do permanent blocks on IPs, because it is always possible that they will eventually change hands. Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Span (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Looie, can you explain to me what I should have done differently? I still can't possibly understand how I ended up getting blocked and Xenophrenic did not. Thanks. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing is that if you file a 3RR report in a situation where you yourself have violated 3RR, it will always backfire. As I wrote in my response, Xenophrenic was not blocked because your 3RR notice did not come until after the last revert -- an editor has to violate 3RR after being informed of the rule in order to be blocked. You yourself did not need to be warned, because the fact that you filed a 3RR report shows that you were aware of the 3RR rule. An additional factor is that you wrote some very rude messages to Xenophrenic, so rude that they would have caused a block even if you had not violated 3RR. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WHOA, wait a second, I missed this last sentence. What in the world did I say to Xenophrenic that was rude?? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But first of all, that's just not what the rule says (emphasis added):

"A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a XXX template message on their user talk page."

Note: the user was demonstrably aware that edit warring is prohibited. He's been on[REDACTED] for over 3 years, and had acknowledged it on the talk page as well. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Second, I did warn him informally - twice, which he saw and acknowledged - on the talk page of the article, after each of which he continued to make more reverts.

Third, I still don't see how I was guilty of a 3RR violation. It seems you must be counting the revert that occured at 7:30 (as documented on my user page) as the 4th revert, but that was a completely different issue over completely different portions of the article. I know that some of these rules are necessarily a little vague, but that would seem very odd if that counts as a 4th revert, because that would seem to suggest that someone isn't allowed to make any edits to an article period for 24 hours after 3 reverts, even if it were in a completely different section of the page. Thanks again. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR rule doesn't apply only to reverts on a single topic. Any reverts count, as long as they are all to the same article. WP:3RR is very clear on this. You can make as many edits as you want without violating the rule, as long as they are not reverts. As for the warning to Xenophrenic, I could only base a decision on the warning you showed me. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to find the original complaint I filed, but I'm pretty sure I did note those two warnings in it. Moreover, regarding the point you made about making as many edits as one wants without violating the rule, that doesn't seem to comport with the definition provided by WP:3RR:

A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

By definition, any revert that changes existing words on the page (rather than only adding new things) is reversing the actions of other editors.

Moreover, if we went with your definition, then consider this scenario:

X makes a change. Y reverts. X restores. Y reverts. X restores. Y reverts.

At this point, X would be free to do absolutely anything he wants to the rest of the wikipage and Y couldn't do anything about it according to your definition and the interpretation of the rules with which you blocked me. That can't possibly be the intent of the rule, can it? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many things that Y can do. Y can start a discussion on the talk page and ask X to participate. Y can go to an appropriate noticeboard or WikiProject and ask for input from other editors. Y can request that the page be protected. But Y can't do any more reverts. And it is not true that any edit that changes the text is a revert. If you fix a spelling error, or clarify the wording, or substitute a better source, those are not reverts, unless you are returning the article to a state it was in earlier. The basic problem is that you are seeing this as a fight, and trying to find a place to win. If you are dealing with another editor who wants to fight, getting into a fight won't lead anywhere -- what you need to do is get help. Looie496 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're confirming that according to your interpretation of the rules, X can do whatever the hell he wants to the rest of the article at this point and the best that Y can do is complain about it on the discussion page or try to get someone else to complain about it on the talk page while X continues to do whatever he wants to the page, or try to get the page shut down entirely? I'm not seeing this as a fight at all, I just don't see why youre interpretation of the rules - and granted, admins clearly have tremendous discretion on the 3RR/edit warring rules - favors chaos rather than the stability of an article.

Again, according to your interpretation consider this scenario:

There is a sentence in the[REDACTED] page for Albert Pujols that says "Pujols is 6 feet tall."

X changes it to "Pujols is 3 feet tall."

Y reverts. Y wants to discuss it on the talk page, but X won't, or at least X keeps changing things before consensus is reached on how tall Pujols is.(Untruthful personal attacks redacted.)

X changes it to "Pujols is 4 feet tall."

Y reverts

Y changes it to "Pujols is 5 feet tall."

Y reverts

X changes it to "Pujols is 247 feet tall."

At this point, the article will state that Pujols is 247 feet tall and Y can't do squat about it, other than to try to go through some lengthy process to lock down the wikipage after making a lengthy plea to some admin, who would rather be doing other things than looking at this complicated issue. After all, X hasn't reverted to a previous state, even though he's re-writing the disputed text. Do you see what I'm getting at? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me answer this way. About one month after I started editing Misplaced Pages articles, I decided that edit-warring was a bad strategy, and ever since then I have followed a 1RR policy. I never revert more than once except in cases of clear vandalism. If I see a need for an edit to be reverted again, I ask for help. And in spite of this, I think most people who know my work (mainly on neuroscience articles) would say that I have been a pretty successful editor -- and in more than 10,000 edits I have never been blocked. Do you see what I'm getting at? Revert-warring is the wrong strategy. When you deal with an editor who reverts and won't discuss, admins and other editors will often be willing to help you. Not always, but often. When you respond by revert-warring, you lose any chance of getting help. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how controversial those topics can be, or how much astroturfing goes on in Neurosurgery etc., but I'll take that as an offer than I can contact you if I'm having trouble with something. The problem is on some pages (like with controversial political activists) frequently change quickly, and if you have to wait too long, things move on without you.

You might have missed it, but I didn't notice your assertion above about my being rude to Xenophrenia until my last post or two. Where was I rude to him, or rude to him in anything close to a way that would get me blocked? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that statement was a confusion with another edit-warring case I handled at about the same time, where I also ended up blocking the reporting editor for having violated 3RR (although in that case both editors were blocked). I have not in fact seen any incivility from you. Looie496 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Looie496. While you are on the subject of incivility, what would be your opinion of mischaracterizing another editor with comments like this one from above? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind; issue resolved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Followup on Ronz

I read it a couple of times. My response is...

Sure, like another admin will come along and say Looie you're totally wrong, I'm putting a block in. So what you're saying is that, even though it's the worse case of tendentious behavior you've ever seen, you are going to do nothing at all based on Ronz's word? The word of four other editors means zip. Thirteen days of this hell, and nothing happens. I'm so going to bring my problems to ANI in the future. Thank you for helping my attitude. I'm sorry for sounding uncivil, but I can't believe what I read. It took thirteen days before we got a rapid and vigorous response this time. Frankly I wish I hadn't been involved in this now. I guess if some of us quit out of frustration it wouldn't matter, but let's not let Ronz go. He's just untouchable. He's probably laughing his butt off over a beer now, and feeling totally vindicated. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT _{GOOD WORKS} 00:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not by any means impossible that another admin will come along and say Looie you're totally wrong, I'm putting a block in. It has happened before. You should make your comment at ANI, if you haven't already. For what it's worth, what I really wish is that this had come to my attention after three days instead of thirteen, because I would have put a stop to it right quick, before it had a chance to turn into a nightmare for everybody. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The guy has 50,000 edits and probably 80% are reverts and abuse. What more do you need? I didn't want to get hit with some disrespect rule on ANI, that's why I'm not there. I'm done with this, this is outrageous. And what block are you putting in; you said you were doing nothing! The rest of us who worked this for two weeks on three boards must be fools. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT _{GOOD WORKS} 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie, I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed by your follow-up myself, though not outraged like some others apparently are. What I take issue with is the idea that the response Ronz gave to you on his talk page shows that "he is very chastened and fully understands that his behavior in this affair is decisively rejected by the community." I agree with those who do not think a punitive block of Ronz should be made because remedies ought to be preventative and not punitive, but I fail to see your question and his response as evidence of a remedy that will prevent these situations in the future. Can you help me understand your rationale here. As I noted at AN/I, all I see is the very tiny first step of accepting the community's consensus that there was no BLP concern after all, but perhaps I'm missing the part where he admits to violating WP:TALK and editing tendentiously while not hearing what others are saying. As I mentioned at AN/I, I see three viable remedies that would be more reassuring and they are not mutually exclusive - 1) specific statements by Ronz that acknowledge the actual disruptions he has made and promises not to repeat them, 2) mentorship so that Ronz can have access to resources to help him understand when he is being disruptive if understanding that is a problem for him, and/or 3) a topic ban from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch related articles. What do you think about these ideas? Like I said, I'm not interested in whipping the guy, but I am interested in preventing another situation like this. Thanks for your further input on this.Griswaldo (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the value of mentorship. Your solution 3 seems possibly useful. Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm all for solution 3 personally. From what Hans has stated it appears that most of his interactions with others on the subject of Barrett and Quackwatch have been like the present one. I'm assuming that his productivity as an editor here is not in that area so a topic ban or some form of probation in that area could only be a benefit to the project.Griswaldo (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie do you mind commenting on my proposal back at AN/I if you've thought about it. You don't have to answer my other query above but I would definately appreciate it if you did that as well (at least here), because I remain confused about how to take comfort in Ronz' actual answer. Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again

Hi Looie. Thanks again for your quick response. I like to avoid AN/I and dramahz as much as possible, and you not only stepped in to help out, but you did it so quickly that I am already out of the arena. I really, really appreciate it. Awickert (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My own experience as an editor has made me believe that the most important thing an admin can do is clear away obstacles that make it hard for good editors to contribute. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what you did! Thank you. Awickert (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What does "BS" means?

Hi, Looie496.
Please, see this . User Ivan Štambuk wrote that (28 Oct 2010, 21:51 CET, that's 6 hours ago).
"Yes (1) is commonly repeated BS that ... That BS is believe it or not even ....".
What is "BS"?
Does that "BS" falls under "I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block" , as you wrote here?
Bye, Kubura (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)NOT speaking for Looie496, but I suspect the comment must be taken in context to determine whether it was meant to be uncivil. In this case, it appears that Ivan is discussing the content of the sources in the section directly above his comment, as opposed to any editor here on Misplaced Pages:

The comment being refered to:

• 1. Some words from the Chakavian and Kajkavian dialects have entered standard Croatian, (cite) (cite)

First response (by kwami) with similar feelings worded differently:

• (1) is dubious (this is one of those claims which is frequently exaggerated, and which AFAIK advocates have been unable to justify on this talk page in the past)

Ivan's response (agreement with earlier response) on the content of the citations:

• Yes (1) is commonly repeated BS that has been debunked in many sources (Greenberg, Kordić etc.)

And here we go again : he keeps insulting every Croatian that is against his POV. Fascistoid ,Serphobic and other terms.--78.3.94.49 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thus, I suspect, when taken into context in such fashion, it may become clear that the external sources are being called (a) dubious, (b) exaggerated and (c) BS (that has been debunked in many (other) sources). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 04:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked my question to admin Looie, since he engaged in the topic. Not to user RobertMfromLI.
I repeat:Looie496, what does "BS" means? Ivan Štambuk used that phrase .
Looie, you've written here ""I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block". Does that BS belong there? This is the question for you, Looie496. Please, don't ignore my question.
Looie, you've been informed on the time about this incident. 6 hours after the incident. And I'm also still waiting to see where was Štambuk's "sod off" processed on WP:ANI. I don't trust to honorable scout's word, I'd like to see the diffs.
Looie, please. Don't give in to bully. Bullies never get satisfied with one victim, they always want more, their "greed" grows with every victim. Don't give in to a bully. Only proper sanction stops them. Do you remember what I've written here to you ?
Please, don't tolerate the injustice done to someone. Don't tolerate the cover up of misbehaviour. Don't tolerate the segregation of users (one side's appeals are ignored and sins are fabricated or magnified beyond the limits of truth, while the other side is protected and its requests (no matter how unfounded) are executed per wish). Don't close your eyes. Injustice won't disappear by herself. It doesn't happen to someone else.
Always remember this . "When they came for me, there was no-one left to speak out." Kubura (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And here we go again : he keeps insulting every Croatian that is against his POV. Fascistoid ,Serphobic and other terms.

And Again the word "BS"

--78.3.94.49 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your intervention at ANI in the thread about Heim Theory. Kind of reminded me of that old western movie where the bad guys are coming to town and no one wants to be the sherriff: everyone knows something has to be done, but no one is willing to do it, except that you were willing. I appreciate that. Also, I saw your user page. I was wondering whether you've ever taken any interest in the OpenEEG project, or active electrodes (pasteless) for EEG, at all? This is very off-topic, of course, so don't reply if you'd prefer not to, or feel free to reply via e-mail, if you'd prefer that. Thanks again for stepping up at ANI. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All of my EEG-related work has involved animals with implanted electrodes. The challenge of making any sense out of EEG signals recorded from outside the human skull has always seemed very daunting to me. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Classy

Regarding "truly intelligent": I've found considering the source a handy approach. You might want to lay low on this one and let a better informed and more civil admin not so prone to hurling insults step in. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely rare for me to say anything insulting, and I don't do it without careful thought. Pretty much the only time I do it is in response to condescension, because I haven't found any other response (short of blocking) that is effective. If you have any suggestion, I am open to it. In my experience there is nothing that infuriates editors as much as being condescended to, so something needs to be done when it happens. The only other option I can think of is to treat it as a personal attack and block the editor, and it seems to me that it is preferable to try something else before that. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you went out. If I employ "careful thought" (too rich) as well, can I have license to insult? Or is it for admins who barely know the protocols of WQAs only? Since you solicited suggestions, here's one: drop the shovel to quit making the hole you are in any deeper. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, bro. Holding me responsible for you inability to remain civil is weak. And and and, as for "nothing that infuriates editors as much as being condescended to, so something needs to be done when it happens. The only other option I can think of is to treat it as a personal attack and block the editor." Since "something needs to be done", are you going to affect a block on yourself. I mean, admins are subject to higher standards are they not? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have addressed you condescendingly. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What a talent you have: admittedly using "careful thought" (I just can't get over that one) to deliberately insult editors without being condescending. While were at it, I more than a little interested where your professed special habit of insulting editors has been "effective" in a manner no other response would have been. Dude you went out. I'd just step away from your mess. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you suppose you could spend one or two seconds considering that maybe I was trying to tell you something important, and that it might be to your benefit to try to understand what I was telling you? Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A scolding following an apology is impertinent. Don't be surprised that if I skip looking within the within the recent turd piles of admonishments for beneficial diamonds of good advice. Apology notwithstanding, I'm still going to have a hard time to not consider the source. Especially since you have not done what you shhould have done in the first place and closed the illegitimate WQA. BTW: BS24 is well documented on his talk page and on his SPI by me and other editors as a mendacious, deceitful sock whom has not substantially responded to any of the serious charges against him but has instead ignorantly viewed them to be personal attacks, and feeling besieged, has asked for admins to intervene. You're the first to take the bait. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Curious

I'm confused. I gave a link at AIV to that long report I filed. Why only block one day? It's clear that this is a long-term troublemaker. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All the contribs from that IP address come from October 30. That means that almost certainly tomorrow the editor will have a different address. The only thing a longer block would accomplish is to possibly catch some innocent editor who later gets the same address. There's nothing to be gained from long blocks of IP editors who hop from address to address -- the only thing that might work is a rangeblock, if the editor uses a limited range of addresses. I could also perhaps semi-protect the articles that are being disrupted, if that would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, though a rangeblock would be more helpful. UFC 125, the target of choice is being subjected to a lot of speculation at the moment, but some IP edits are helpful. I don't think SP is the right way to go. Since a few of this individual's IPs are on the same range, I think that would be particularly useful. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User who got only a light warning

Hi since you took care of this case today. Please see here: and specially the last comment about "bombing" a certain country, and hateful WP:soapbox WP:BATTLE WP:NPA comments. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC). Please read my comments on the noticeboard. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm aware of what is going on here. The last messages from Iksus2009 (at Talk:Nezami Ganjavi) talk about going away and leaving Misplaced Pages alone. When a problem editor says that, the best approach is to disengage and see whether it happens. If the editor really intends to leave, attacking him is counterproductive because the only thing it can do is pull him back into the fight. If he comes back and makes any further edits to talk pages or articles along the previous lines, I plan to block him. You really don't need to do anything more here except, if you like, let me know if he edits again (although I'm watching anyway). Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How many chances does he get? Two, Three, four, five? Are three warnings not enough? Well, it is easy to be calm, but sometimes when you have family in a certain country, and another user hopes that they are bombed, it is sort of disturbing. It creates a bad atmosphere. What allows him to get away with such a comments? Misplaced Pages is not a forum or WP:BATTLE. He was been warned by you, another admin, me and Nishkid64 and his account is free. His ip should be blocked as well for a period, since he edited with that as well. Misplaced Pages should not tolerate such users more than three times. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

See my comments here: . I almost feel like there is a discrimination on the upper level. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder per previous dicussions: "Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "

After that he commented like previous time, I warned him once. Then he commented again, then nothing. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Quack!

I fixed the template - hope you don't mind :> Good call on the block, but Mackfan345 is possibly coming around the corner! Veeeeeerrrrryyyyy slowly and steadily... ;P Doc talk 00:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Pumpie's talk page. Thank you.— Dædαlus 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI - hiding comments

In this section you collapsed a bunch of comments under WP:RBI. Although I largely agree with this I thought the comments on JaGa's tool should be left outside the collapse as it may help people catch more socks (it's allowed me to find an extremely suspicious looking user) and so have removed it from the collapse. Hope this is OK with you. Dpmuk (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, all I was hoping for was to keep any more edits from the socks from accumulating there. Looie496 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Shannon Brown

Good call with Shannon Brown. That article attracts so much garbage. Zagalejo^^^ 02:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Can you take a look at this? There has been a very long discussion here: 7 people support the inclusion of proposal 2 while only one objects, I believe the consensus is to have the sentence in all settlement articles. Can you take a look at this and confirm if you see there is consensus for it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to look at the discussion or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I looked at it. Two things: (1) I don't have time to figure all that out. (2) My ability to be useful in I-P stuff depends on staying uninvolved, so I really want to stay out of things unless there is a totally clear policy mandate to take some particular action. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at AN regarding your block of Triton Rocker. The thread is "Appeal by Triton Rocker".Thank you. -- Sandstein  12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer user right

Thread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk)
Hi -- I just gave you "reviewer" status to simplify things on the Ref Desk. I don't see any serious risk that you will misuse it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how this works. I thought reviewing was something one does for mainspace articles when requested. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's explained at WP:RVW. It's really not a big deal -- the most important effect is that for pages under "pending changes" control (as with the Science RefDesk at the moment), your own edits will automatically be accepted instead of requiring review by somebody else. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this new feature. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus protection?

Do you feel the article protection you applied at Cyprus, and your suggestion that Stephen G. Brown (talk · contribs) was as guilty of 3RR as was Austria12 (talk · contribs), might merit revisiting in light of Austria12's identification and blocking as a banned sock? Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Thanks for the info. Looie496 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gillabrand/Psagot

Can Gillabrand's recent edits to Psagot be reverted now? I tried to begin a dialogue at Talk:Psagot, but now hear from your intervention that s/he has "stepped away." Can you make the changes since the page is now protected?--Carwil (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm a pretty new admin, and I don't yet fully understand the rules for editing pages that are protected, so I'm not willing to do that without a bit of investigation first. Also to clarify, my statement that Gilabrand had stepped away was my assessment of the interaction with Nableezy that existed before I did anything -- it wasn't a result of any intervention of mine. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Looie496, there are still problems with Psagot article, For instance Psagot and its residents have been involved in exchanges of one- and two-way gunfire with Palestinians living in Ramallah misrepresents the source, Carwil. You could see this as edit/review request, since the article is locked. Just my thoughts how to improve the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:24.60.116.133/User:Wtshymanski

Hey there. I came across User talk:24.60.116.133, who is appealing their edit warring block (I'm about to decline it, btw), but I'm a little confused why you didn't block User:Wtshymanski as well. They've been edit warring just as much as the IP has. Hersfold 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the main reason is that Wtshymanski has been making every effort to discuss the issue, and has been supported by another editor, while the IP has just kept reverting. I don't actually object to an unblock if the IP editor will agree to stop trying to add the material until there is consensus for it on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Looie496

Looie: You're a new-er administrator who I've been observing and whose actions and comments (e.g., at ANI) I've come to respect. Was wondering if you'd be willing to give me a "first opinion" on whether or not I would succeed in requesting the Rollbacker permission at this point in time? Just looking for an outside view; don't want to be made foolish with the big red  Not done. I don't use TW, HG, GLOO, or other automated tools, so I'm not sure it's an absolute need. Your thoughts or reaction would be welcome. Thanks. Saebvn (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback has one and only one use: to revert vandalism. The only thing it does is to make undoing more efficient. So the first thing a reviewer would look for is how frequently you have used "undo" to revert vandalism. Looking through the first pages of your contribs, I didn't see any uses of "undo" at all -- so I would be inclined to say that you don't need rollback at this time. (The second thing a reviewer looks for is whether you use the term "vandalism" correctly, but that can't be done if you don't use it at all.) I've only looked through the past week of your contribs -- if earlier contribs tell a different story, everything I wrote here may be wrong. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. Saebvn (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

loonie/looie

hi looie, it was pointed out to me i "insultingly" called you "loonie496" here. i've corrected the name and wanted to apologize to you personally, this was an honest mistake, i misread your name (should of copy-pasted) when i was writing my post. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt that I would even have noticed it, actually. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

GBC Asset Management - A division of Pembroke Management

Thank you very much for your feedback on my page...

I've made a number of edits that I hope make the page more consistent with spirit of Wiki.

Am interested to know your thoughts.

Much appreciated, Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by A341672 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Balkans sanctions warning?

Dear Looie496, would you be so kind and present difflinks with my unacceptable behavior why my name is put on Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings and message is on my talk page. Also, why Kwamikagami is also not there? Kind regards. --Roberta F. (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Sock Puppet

Based on this guy's contributions, and this edit, I'm pretty sure he's the same guy I've been dealing with for the last few months, and the basis for your protection of the Owens & Minor article.

Here were his contributions under a previous sock puppet. I think you'll see a recognizable editing pattern. That user made the exact same edit to the Owens & Minor article here.

I'm posting this here, rather than the notice board, because the evidence is largely circumstantial, and it calls for someone who's dealt with the guy before and knows his M.O.

Thanks.

John2510 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't know anything about this. I often do a couple of dozen protection requests a day -- I look at them, make a quick eval of the evidence, take whatever action seems appropriate, and instantly forget about them. I'll look at this if I have some spare time, but that may not happen. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hi, Looie496! Since the Brazilian elections has already finished, I think it's now safe to unprotect the article Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Thanks. --Laciportbus (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see...

... you blocked User:Jrkso and his "opponent" for accusing each other of ethnic POV. Perhaps you could defuse the "ethnic COI" situation at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Hamas_and_the_Taliban_analogy, hopefully without blocks. Search for "COI" there; it's at the end of the page right now. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Too late to keep that bubble from bursting: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy_.28civility.29. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You also seem to have gotten the "editor balance" in the I-P area all wrong. You certainly aren't going to win the "Best Zionist Editor" prize: (found these on User_talk:Zero0000). Tijfo098 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing

Hi Looie496, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing an AN3 where you commented

I have closed this report with no action, but I have left some advice for the parties at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: stale, but advice). Please comment or let me know if you think there is anything else we can do here. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik

Hi, sorry to bother you but since you're a little familiar with User:Tajik I just wanted you to know that he is attacking me while I discuss something with other editors. Tajik states: "Jrkso: first of all, it would be very helpful if you stopped putting your answers in the middle of the discussion, ignoring the chronology. Just write your answers at the bottom of each discussion. Readers and participants are not dumb! ... I do not blame you for not understanding the simple fact... You do not understand this because (and that is very obvious) you lack basic mathematical knowledge and understanding. In this case, I do not think that you are the best person to judge that..." Tajik removes sourced information that he doesn't like to see. . He violated the 3rr rule yesterday. , , . He completely disregarded your warning. As for me, I understood your warning and kept away from him but he decided to follow me and my edits, deleting my contributions.--Jrkso (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd

Hi Looie496. This editor continues to add good-faith but clumsey and poorly cited content to mental health articles, and is ignoring/not noticing messages. Is there some way we could block their IP so that when they attempt to edit they're confronted with a friendly message explaining they need to improve their citing, with maybe a link to a talk page they can edit where I'll tutor them? Or can you think of some way we can channel their prodigious enthusiasm into productive work? Anthony (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Long term edit-warring at Prahlad Jani

Hi Looie496. As is usual with this article, the long-term edit-war has started again against long-established consensus. Please assist if you can. Thank you. Dr.K.  22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

AE appeal

Please see WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jo0doe. Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

1. name=http://foia.fbi.gov/robeson/robes1a.pdf, 1989, pgs 4, 53-55.
2. Cite error: The named reference Duberman Preface was invoked but never defined (see the help page).