Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 6 April 2006

Note: I will be at EGU for the first week in April. Depending on how interesting the talks are, and on how well the wireless network works, my contributions here will either go up or down :-)

Any wikipedians at EGU are invited to contact me & I'll buy you a drink!

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.

If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here & I'll go take a look.

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. If I've blocked you for 3RR this applies particularly strongly: your arguments for unblock, unless for some odd reason particularly sensitive, should be made in public. See-also WMC:3RR.

In the dim and distant past were... /The archives

Notes for self: protected pages:

• Macedonians (ethnic group) 2006/03/16
• Encyclopedia of Anthropology 2006/03/23 against Kolriv
• Freemasonry 2006/03/26 - that was the one. Now its prot again!

And one other I've forgotten...

Note to others: I just put that here to stop me forgetting; I don't own the protect (of course).

Atmospheric circulation pic

Thanks for the pic you added to this article. It's very interesting, and I am intrigued by some of the anomalies it shows. Denni☯ 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denni. Thanks! All part of my very very slow atmospheric dynamics project... more to come... slowly... William M. Connolley 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

RRS John Biscoe

I've justed created a stub for this article and found you'd already done the same for her successor, the James Clark Ross. Great!  Do you have (access to) a Commons/Wikipedia-compliant photo of the Biscoe that could be used? Apologies in advance if my search failed to turn one up.
Best wishes, David Kernow 15:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't; I'll ask around a bit William M. Connolley 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If no joy, or too much hassle, I'm hopeful one or other of the Antarctica websites with photos might give permission or adopt a Commons/Wikipedia-friendly licence. David Kernow 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Trend Estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

William: This article you started is a great topic! I am just wondering if you have detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am facing this problem now, and am trying to get information from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, IMHO what to do with auto-correlated data is an ongoing research topic. Top tip: divide the ndof by something like (1+ac1) (or is it ac1^2...) if the autocorr isn't too extreme. There is some formula like (1+ac1^2+ac2^2+...) if its strongly auto-correlated... but... its a bit of a mess, I think. Err, thats why I never expanded that bit. The von Zstorch and Zwiers book covers it, somewhat. William M. Connolley 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to autoregressive moving average models JQ 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Please go here, the user is a chronic vandaliser who has been warned many times.Zmmz 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is a number of vandalizers: ], ], ] regularly vandalizing my contribution to the article: ]

I warned them - but it does not make them to stop vandalizing it.

Southern vacillations

There's an edit about SB03 that is in dire need of improvement. It's right up your alley. FYI, Daniel Collins 20:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC).

Sorry for delay, got missed in the infighting I think. I've commented now, and made some huge hacks too William M. Connolley 22:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Depleted uranium disambiguation

Hi. Since some people are known (to my dismay) to refer to me as "N" as a shortcut, you might want to disambiguate your evidence to make clear that you are referring to James Salsman, and not me. Thanks. Nandesuka 13:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, will do William M. Connolley 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Overlooked image?

Hey Mr. TL-C's puppetmaster, it looks like Image:IMG 0335-james-clark-ross.jpg didn't get a GFDL like the others. (The untagged images project sees all sins!) Stan 13:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

C'est moi. Tagged! Thanks for the notice William M. Connolley 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Scientific peer review

Wasn't sure if you were aware of this, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. Guettarda 16:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was half-aware. I'll go and become fully aware :-) William M. Connolley 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll volunteer - it's probably best to explain ones credentials oneself. And yeah, I forgot about Dunc. I'll mention it to him. Guettarda 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a example of a good or featured science article of yours? This would make it easy to vote in your favour in the project.--Stone 22:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure thats the right idea. In fact I would say its wrong. William M. Connolley 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is wrong would it than be right to ask you if you participated in a PR with good arguments and helped to improve a article? For me the administrative abilities and a large number of edits are simply not enough for SPR. --Stone 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got time to be on a committee, but I could look at econ articles from time to time JQ 07:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That might be useful. It may become clearer at some point what this board might do... William M. Connolley 09:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

monobook

I noticed that you are not using the AN/3RR tabs. Note that you can custimize them by changing them (or you can tell me what you want them changed to exactly).Voice-of-All 02:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Its taking some getting used to. Err. Maybe tonight. William M. Connolley 09:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Antarctic Expedition

If you are interested, and don't have access to JSTOR, I can send you a PDF copy of the paper that I cite in the article, it mentions extensively the subject that you just talked about. If you like, just email me through the Misplaced Pages email function and I'll reply attaching the paper. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 18:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats OK, BAS has an extensive historical section in the library... now you've started this I may try to add some more William M. Connolley 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, not surprising, it would be great to have some more input, even if its just in laying out the article etc. I'm kind of stumped for the scope of the article, what to include, what to leave out etc. Its a very big subject :) - FrancisTyers 20:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weather and monsoon on AID

Hi William, maybe you are interested in voting especially for weather, but also monsoon on WP:AID, both of which are close to missing their thresholds.

Happy to vote for both of those William M. Connolley 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also wondering if you're coming to Edinburgh for the Antarctic treaty meeting in June? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. In fact I didn't know it was on :-( William M. Connolley 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

JS

I re-added the JS, but without the popups. That should work. Tell me if there is anything else you want changed.Voice-of-All 19:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ta! I'll give it a go... William M. Connolley 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Try protecting and unprotecting articles (leave the tag)...its really fun for some reason :-)!Voice-of-All 19:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hobbes

Hobbes is a character in Wing Commander games and novels. As Hobbes is redirected to Thomas Hobbes, I find it logical to refer to the page of the character. Moreover, the same has been done for the comic strip. 84.193.3.47 20:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The comic strip is far far more notable. We can't list every thing or object called Hobbes. Possibly the redirect page should become disambig William M. Connolley 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User block?

Hi William. Well, it has happened again. We recently had another revert war over on the various Freemasonry related pages. It is the same problem as always... one POV agenda pushing user who ends up being yet another sock of User:Lightbringer/User:Basil Rathbone, etc. This time he is going under the sock name of User:40 Days of Lent. We ran a sock check on him, and it does check out that this is the same person. Since an arbitration banned him from editing Freemasonry related pages undsr his other sock names, could you slap an indefinite block on him under this name. He may currently be blocked for 24 hours due to a 3rrr... but that will expire shortly, if it has not already happened. If you feel you need to review the situation, look at his edit history, especially on Talk:Freemasonry paying attention to the history (another user has deleted some of his vandalism, so it is not readily apparent.) Thanks. Blueboar 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough; I've blocked (but next time put the sock check evidence link here so I don't have to go looking for it) William M. Connolley 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Question re: User Conduct RFC

The policy states that before submitting a User conduct RFC, attempts to solve the problem must be clearly made within the same 48 hour period by two or more users. Does that mean that the RFC can only deal with very recent issues within the last 48 hours, or within a given 48 hour period, or can it be extended to show a repetitive pattern if one is evident? MSJapan 23:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours? That means that *after* the RFC is listed, it needs to be certified by 2 people. It doesn't mean the dispute has to have been over the last 48. Although it would be slightly odd to file the RFC is there hadn't been any recent problems William M. Connolley 10:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple enough. The RFC is not re: Freemasonry, though, but for Jahbulon, because we seem to be going in circles because of one user, and it's really getting out of hand. MSJapan 16:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi there, I just want to get a second opinion from an admin, so would you please look at this section and see if there are any violations, like incivilty, etc. Yeah, and you definitely don`t have to warn the editor in question --but, I just wanted to get an idea of what is going on. Can I report this guy for harrassment? ThanksZmmz 09:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... do you really mean that section? I see you an InShaneee talking. Or do you mean the "response" bit? Lukas posted, tentatively. You replied; not unnaturally he took that as meaning that talk was appropriate. If you don't want his words on your talk page, remove them, don't reply to them, and certainly don't reply at length. Also Lukas, your vicious language does not lend further credibility to you. was inappropriate. William M. Connolley 10:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring only to the section, `Response`, by user Lukas. I understand what you are saying, but if you can, please re-read that section; I had asked Lukas to take his grievances to the Rfc page last week, yet, he does in fact continue to write, and accuse me of many different things, and just uses an all out abbrasive tone. But, most of the language he uses, I think warrants a report to be written up against him for incivility and/or stalking. Let me know your take on it? Thank youZmmz 10:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the section that Lukas originally posted on my talk page; that is if you`re looking into this at all.Zmmz 10:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read the response section. What more can I say? I stand by Lukas posted, tentatively. You replied; not unnaturally he took that as meaning that talk was appropriate. If you don't want his words on your talk page, remove them, don't reply to them, and certainly don't reply at length. William M. Connolley 13:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, that is why I originally erased his comments, but he threatened that erasing comments from the talk page can be viewed as, get this, uncooperative behaviour. I just don`t appreciate `Lukas` using language like, disgrace to Misplaced Pages, none of your business, Please re-read every single word of what I said above, try to take it in, and then go away, and if you have any decency. I don`t recall using language like that with anyone since I`ve been here, so certainly we are not on the same footing. I thought a warning was warranted. Zmmz 21:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamsacharya dan

Dear WP Admin Mr. William M. Connolley,

Dan Kogan, an ordained teacher of the Hamsa Yoga Sangh cult has been creating havoc for the past weeks by relentlessly inserting the name of his guru, his guru's book, quotes from his guru's book, and external link to their website on the following articles Kriya yoga, Mahavatar Babaji, Nath, and Adi Nath when the majority of the editors (actually all of them) who are experts on the subject agree that his guru is illegitimate, his inserts does not enrich (add anything substantial) the already existing articles, and only aims to promore the personal interest of their organization.

This person wants to turn WP into a propaganda material for a highly questionable (possibly harmful) pseudo-Hindu cult while pretending to be an impartial concerned Wikipedian who only wants to enrich it. The situation is really bad. He has just been banned but as soon as he gets unbanned he begins to relentlessly vandalize the pages with irrelevant and immaterial cult propaganda once again.

It is futile to try and protect the integrity of an article when someone like this person Hamsacharya dan, like the Energizer Bunny, keeps on reverting them and gets away with it without being taught a lesson.

To see for yourself that Hamsacharya dan is really an ordained teacher of the cult he keeps on inserting to the articles and not just a concerned Wikipedian with no alterior motive, please see the following website and scroll down a bit for Hamsacharya Dan Kogan.

Please help us. Will you help us?

Thanking you in advance,

No To Frauds 11:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, your user name is not a good choice. I recommend you change it. Secondly, flinging around charges of vandalism in what looks rather like a content dispute is probably inflamatory. Thirdly, he has only edited the article in question once since the end of his block, so all the Energizer Bunny stuff is also inflammatory. Calm down, look at WP:DR William M. Connolley 13:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Hamsacharya dan

I don't know if you noticed, but the first edit made by this user after you unblocked him had a deceptive edit comment. This guy doesn't seem to be able or willing to engage in discussion on talk pages. If you look at the talk page for this article, you will see that he didn't participate in a recent survey, nor in any subsequent discussion. He keeps trying to apply his changes arbitrarily, and will not discuss either before or after. TIA for you attention to this matter. —Adityanath 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh-hu, and no doubt you wanted to draw my attention to this inappropriate edit comment too. I see plenty of discussion by HD on that page. I also see a reasonably successful attempt at mediation: I urge you to help make it work William M. Connolley 15:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm ignoring User:NoToFrauds. He's as much a fanatic as User:Hamsacharya dan; both parties repetitive reverts are doing more harm than good, imo. —Adityanath 16:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Weeeeeeeeeeelll if you are ignoring them both, why aren't you? Also, judging from the talk pages, NTF is a good deal more fanatic. But thats not judging by the edit contents. William M. Connolley 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. NTF removes everything HD does. I am more in agreement with NTF personally, but I believe HD's guru does deserve some mention in the articles involved. Unfortunately, when NTF removes HD's stuff, HD has a tendency to revert to pre-consensus material which promotes rather than informs about his guru. HD seems to want to use WP as an advertising platform. Because this advertising includes outrageous claims, others want to rebut or qualify these claims. I've advised HD that the problem would tend to go away if he simply stuck to facts, but I guess this would paint his guru as too mundane. Not sure what to do... —Adityanath 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, Aditya, the way things have been going, we've sort of turned into rivals - I think you are a bright man, and if we're to be honest, you also have a strong devotion to uphold your Gurudev Mahendranath's teachings. I admit that when I started in Misplaced Pages, I was a bit too brash with my changes of the Nath page - I was a novice and the policy instructions say "Be Bold!" I feel that may have initiated our ongoing conflict. I regret forming this rivalry with you, and would prefer to come to a resolution and consensus. I understand that there are some problems you have with certain of my edits that sound outlandish, and I have had problems with people distorting or deleting my edits - why don't we start over with each other, and talk about what we like and don't like about the way each other are handling this conflict and the pages we both care about - Nath, Yogiraj Gurunath, Kriya Yoga, Mahavatar Babaji. I have felt overwhelmed in the past due to additional destructive contributions by NoToFrauds, but I feel that these are dying down, and we can work together to come to consensus. I'm offering a truce, and a calm discussion. Let's start by not editing anything, but first finding a common ground and discussing our thoughts. We do have a lot in common after all. Then we can discuss how we envision these pages ending up. We may clash, but let's work towards a spirit of resolution rather than rivalry. I did this with Priyanath, and it has worked. Try me. Hamsacharya dan 06:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR Issue-Reposting

Reposting after for some reason that Hawishiwara Dan fellow deleted my message... I went to the 3RR Board but am having trouble with the format there...

Please list this at WP:AN3, and do your best with the formatting William M. Connolley 08:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

DarrenRay and 2006BC

Check my note on WP:ANI - Darren Ray (DarrenRay (talk · contribs)) and Ben Cass (2006BC (talk · contribs)) are different people, but they've been working in concert for months, as far as I can tell, as the phenomenon known to the vandal-hunters as the Australian Politics Vandal, under about 1 zillion usernames. They're actually different people, though this isn't clear from the checkuser as each has edited from the other's house (looks like to me) with their own and sockpuppets' usernames. I would say "block by massive admin disgust" except this has been pretty much in effect, and the only reason we have these two to hit with an AC case, etc. is because they are stupidly arrogant and operating out from under cover now. I blocked DarrenRay for a short block, but reinstated Essjay's 1 month block because there ain't no way these people are here to do good, except as a cover for doing bad - David Gerard 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, will reply on your page William M. Connolley 20:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your work re: Joseph Sobran

3RR

After reading your bio I have to say it feels weird to be asking a guy with a Phd from Oxford to deal with 3RR violations...

but please see the 3RR page re: DickClarkMises, who has been violating 3RR on numerous occassions

Thanks Rogerman 06:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

You're welcome. DCM promises to be good (says he had misunderstood the rule) so I've unblocked him. Hopefully this will work out. William M. Connolley 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours.

Also, be so kind as to decide whether you are Purger or Purqer.

William M. Connolley 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind - I am Purger and not Purqer!!! So, you blocked me for a wrong reason!--Purger 18:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Kolriv et al.

Thanks for joining in. I'm listing them mainly to give me an idea as to when he's about to run out of variations of "kolriv"... Not for quite a while, unfortunately. He seems to have left Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition alone for the moment, and H. James Birx has been protected against him. Perhaps this one needs to be protected for a short time too; he might lose interest and wander off somewhere else. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be fun. I've blocked another one but now got bored, so I've semi'd the article instead - undo that if you disagree. Its a strange and pointless method of vandalism... William M. Connolley 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I don't understand him at all. Thanks for the help. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

3rr

Hi William. I think you have some experience with user:Netscott. Just telling you that he has violated 3rr on the Muhammad article. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He's been reported for it, but Ruud decided against and I think he is right - if its the 100 bit, he self-reverted that out again. I agree he has 4 edits *marked* revert (which counts in his faour - I like people who admit what they are doing) William M. Connolley 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like some of my earlier comments about you might have been off there William M. Connolley... good estimation of that report as well. ;-) Cheers! Netscott 23:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

obviousness

Hi William, Thanks for looking into the reported 3RR situation. Can you tell me what you mean by "not obvious"... I guess I didn't understand the "Previous version" part that is required, but I thought that this initial revert of his demonstrated that he removed all of the content from my initial edit. My understanding is that such "undoing of the work of another editor", in whole or in part, constitutes a revert? Thanks. Lokiloki 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I guess this is what you were looking for: ? This shows the initial version as of 10:38, 25 March 2006, and then shows his reversion back to this on 10:43, 25 March 2006 Lokiloki 21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added that reference to the 3RR page -- I believe that is what I missed out the first time? Thanks, Lokiloki 21:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Assistance?

We have a problem editor on Freemasonry, Fyodor_Dos (talk · contribs), and he claims he has sourced edits when he has not, and conversely claims the rest of us tdo not source our reversions when the material is plainly visible on the talk page. I bet he is a sock of Lightbringer, and he has clearly stated his goal is to prove Freemasonry is occult and secret and hides that fact from the public, so he's definitely partisan, but maybe you could either explain the problem to him or help us mediate the issue? I'd RFM, but I've been waiting six weeks for a mediator on another issue, and as Fyodor has been 3RR blocked twice in two ays, and is going for number three, this is rapidly getting to be an untenable situation. My RFPP was also not acted upon, my RFCUs are sitting there, and I think the admins believe this is all content dispute in an article when it is clear that this is pattern vandalism and POV-pushing in spite of an ArbCom ruling. MSJapan 06:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats the busy world of wiki, I'm afraid. I have RFCU sitting there too... I'll protect it, its seen enough reverting for a bit William M. Connolley 11:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ido think, however, that there is a dangerous trend going on regarding the Freemasonry-related articles. Apparently SeraphimXI wanted a mediator for Jahbulon, and she stated that everyone on IRC pretty much ignored it because it was a Freemasonry article. what is happening, if one follows the trends, is that the same individual (or a small group) is really trying very hard to push certain things into the articles (usually along the lines of anti-Catholicism, Satanism, discrimination, and other negative material) without being able to source said accusations. When these are reverted for lack of support, the "Masonic editor" rants and misleading edit summaries begin. For example, Fyodor_Dos claimed he added seven sources to the article to support his edits. The diffs show otherwise, and rather than post the sources on the talk page, he decided to rant about other people's complaints and edits. This is a pattern that has been going on for over six months, it has been escalating, and when admins as a general rule (with exceptions), ignore the goings-on as a content dispute rather than a pervasive ongoing problem, it only reinforces the POV-pushers. It also requires myself and others to constantly rely on one or two admins who are aware of the details of the situation to take care of the situation, and that's not particularly fair either. Can you think of any way that the problem could be mitigated, if only by making more admins aware of what the real scope of the issue is? We've even put together a subsection on WP:LTA, but it hasn't seemed to have helped. ArbCom enforcement can't be done without RFCU, and I've had a number of AIVs removed as "content dispute complaints" (last by Jdforrester, who did not answer me when I asked him on his Talk page what to do about a situation if he removes a request and calls it a content dispute and I can show it's pattern vandalism). So I've really come to the end of the rope as far as what else can be done, as it seems that no matter where I post an issue, it gets ignored because of where it's coming from rather than what it is. MSJapan 21:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that there is an easy answer. I went through a lot of pain on the global warming type articles before happiness ensured, sort of. People are reluctant to touch disputes over complex areas that they don't know about, *unless* there are clear conduct issues. RFCU is always going to have too many requests. So if you care enough about this to keep at it, then do so; recruiting others who are prepared to help is always the best way (have you tried a page RFC?) William M. Connolley 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Tried that regarding an issue, and we only got ten votes, and nothing else since the 11th. Supposedly the RFC page was vandalized (see here), and I didn't do the RFC right as a result, but the material was supposed to have been reposted (though I couldn't tell you what topic Freemasonry falls into. The other issue is that the vandalism spreads to editing other articles and then supporting edits on Freemasonry with those other edits (see here). I've also tried requesting CheckUser from ArbCom so that particular problem could be dealt with more quickly (proof could be posted so an actual admin (which wouldn't be me) could act on the objective info); I got no reply. MSJapan 21:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of objective info, Fyodor forgot to sign in before complaining on RFCU, so he's done the work for me. His IP is in the diff here and as you can see by the list of Lightbringer socks User:Lightbringer, there's a few IPS in that list that are reasonably close, and there might be a few more on WP:LTA. Is that good enough for a block? MSJapan 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If I can speak up, the IP (24.68.240.98) used by Fyodor resolves to an 'Shawcable' server in British Columbia (Canada, as I'm sure you know). Two IP's we know Lightbringer has been using (24.68.242.147 and 24.68.243.40) resolves to pretty much the same; servers owned and run by Shaw Communications Inc. While not conclusive proof - we know (per the report on WP:LTA) that Lightbringer uses open proxies - it's a strong indicator IMO that we're dealing with yet another sock here. A CheckUser result would be usefull, thought I realise that RFCU has a massive backlog. WegianWarrior 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

He just used the IP again, making it less likely it's a dynamicly allecated IP. It might be an open proxy, I'm not sure how to check that. WegianWarrior 08:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. OK, I think you've established that 24.68.240.98 = Fyodor, and that 24.68.240.98 is probably Lightbringer. I'll block William M. Connolley 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

APPCDC and UNFCCC

You ask "who says" that the AP6 is compatible with UNFCCC and complementary to Kyoto. These claims are straight from the . It would be better to add a critique, rather than simply remove them from the article. Mporter 06:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Help me here. Which article are you talking about and which edit? I don't remember this William M. Connolley 10:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mporter 22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I replied here. Cheers, Sam Spade 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I guess

Thanks for the comment. Yeah, it was pretty clear it had to go. --OrbitOne talk 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Cluster

	We, the children of the Earth, acknowledge William M. Connolley to have written many words of wisdom, which will be heeded for generations to come. As such these Barnstars are for your continuing efforts for that which is good, fair and accurate in Misplaced Pages. So say we all.
	So say we all!	RoyBoy, Guettarda, KillerChihuahua, FeloniousMonk, ScienceApologist, WAS 4.250, Jim62sch, Dragons flight 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you all, I'm deeply touched. Now I have to keep living up to it William M. Connolley 13:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I have already left a note on the 3RR page, but thought it would be a good idea to contact you on your discussion page too. I have completely missed the point you made there thinking that you were about to block me too. Hence, the snappy comment. I suppose if I had lived by the quote from the Leviathan, this would not have happened. Once again my apologies. EurowikiJ 17:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Um no, you were right, I intended to block you. Please review your contribs to that article. But I'm just back from the pub now so I think I'll lay off any blocks until sober :-) William M. Connolley 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A trivial disambiguation

Your user page link to Coton left me guessing that you live in Coton, Cambridgeshire. Never heard of it, though I did briefly live and work in Berko, before fleeing to Hertford. ...dave souza, talk 12:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There used to be only one Coton... yes, I am in the Cambridge one. Its a small place. Berko was quite nice too, to grow up in William M. Connolley 12:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer sock ... again

Hi William... he is back. This time on Anti-Masonry (since you locked the Freemasonry Page). Please see: here. The ISP is the same as Fyodor Dos, (24.68.240.98). This time he goofed up and forgot to sign his comments before too much damage was done, but he is supposed to be banned from editing ANY Freemasonry page. Please slap an indefinite block on him. Sorry to keep pestering you about this, but (as MSJapan and others have said above) of all the Admins, you probably know the situation on the Freemasonry pages the best, and can recognize the trouble when it comes. Thanks Blueboar 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Next time please... remind me of the proof that 24...98 is FD; wiki A-M etc for convenience. Thanks. William M. Connolley 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do... and thanks again. Blueboar 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

William, I don't have confirmation on his IP yet, but I suspect that we have yet another Lightbringer/Basil Rathbone/Fyodor Dos sock at Anti-Masonry. It is a new user going by the name User:Oregano. His edits are the same as User:JKWithers who you just banned for being a Lightbringer sock.

Here are the difs: JKWithers edits: here, and here

While Oregano just posted: this and this. Please run a user check on Oregano and see if he uses an IP address close to 21.68.240.98 which was the one JKW and FD used (and close to other Lightbringer Sock IPs). Thanks Blueboar 14:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf War

Just so you know William, the full official name of the conflict is "Persian Gulf War", "Gulf War" is simply the shortened version used in common situations, but still the full encyclopedic title should be "Persian Gulf War" as used by other authoritative encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica , Encyclopedia Encarta , Encyclopedia.com , The Columbia Encyclopedia and pretty much every other major Encyclopedia out there. Regards. --ManiF 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you about what words should be used in the article, and will edit accordingly, though of course without using my special powers William M. Connolley 17:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with calling it "Gulf War" in the midst of the sections but I think the article's title and introduction should include something like "Persian Gulf War, commonly known as The Gulf War" in accordance with all the major Encyclopedias. Regards. --ManiF 17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Tags and Molobo

I am not sure if I understood your comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Molobo_..._again correctly, but if you are considering banning Molobo (for 1 week??) please note that I most strongly oppose this for the reasons explained there. I don't plan to engage in a 'block war', but I'd like to ask you reconsider your block decision. I think Molobo should not be blocked for restoring the tag, and if he is blocked, all other participants of the tag war should be blocked for the same duration. Finally, blocking a valuable contributor like Molobo for one week is a big loss to Misplaced Pages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered on 3RR page William M. Connolley 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, take a note that Molobo's previous block was undone on account of Piotr's vociferation on the blocking admin's talk page. He is always upset when his pet troll can revert no more. Checking the history of Piotr's wheel warring is also instructive. So I'm afraid his judgment in this case is not sound. Molobo already ousted from Misplaced Pages such precious editors and admins as User:Wiglaf, and he may do many more. Cheers, Ghirla 18:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't think I need to add much to the post above (the number of personal attacks and such is almost eye watering), I'd just like to point you to User_talk:Piotrus#Block_of_User:Molobo. The truth points to itself. I'll add other comments at the 3RR if needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your reply, and it's getting late here. I respect your right to give a 24h block here for 3RR violation, but as a fellow admin I ask you to lift the block after 24h. Disruption blocks are controversial.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied there. 24h may actually do him good to calm down. But I cannot agree to exclude a good content creator for 7-days: I'd oppose such a long ban on Ghirla or any other content creator too. We should not let rules (especially one's interpretation of their evolution...) get in front of our main goal: creating encyclopedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear prokonsul, if you again liken one of the most active and prolific wikipedians to your worthless pet troll (who you try to represent as a "precious content creator") - we shall have to continue this discussion on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus. Personal attacks and campaigning on talk pages are not likely to earn additional points for the rabid anti-Ghirlandajo crusade which you solemnly launched half a year ago. Take care, Ghirla 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

P: I replied on 3RR. That discussion is clogging the page: I shall move it to WP:ANI. I think you are being inconsistent: at 3RR you are arguing strongly that the rules forbid >24h blocks, even though they are often done. Here you are promoting IAR. William M. Connolley 08:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Lightbringer sock....

User:ALR alerted me to these diffs (the links are posted on my talk page as well):

• ] was Fyodor Dos

• ] is JKWithers

As they are the exact same IP, it's obvious that JKWithers is Fyodor (and also possible that this is not a dynamic IP). However, JKWithers made a few minor edits to a few other articles in-between his postings on Anti-Masonry, as shown by this:JKWithers (talk · contribs). I'm tempted to ask for a block now, but I'm sure the problem will show itself sooner or later, so I'll leave it up to your discretion as to what to do. MSJapan 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Look above you... William M. Connolley 21:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Syberghost has violated 3RR on Ann Coulter. Please see.

take it to WP:3RR and format it properly, please William M. Connolley 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Could you give me an opinion on this edit? It keeps getting reverted. Shouldn't alternative names be bold-faced? Aucaman 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For a start, it is not an "alternative name" --Kash 01:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman's position seems reasonable to me. There is too much stupid nationalism going on. William M. Connolley 09:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read this. This is not about nationalism, those who advertise that bogus name are nationalists, not the other way around. I suspect you are not familiar with the history of this subject. --ManiF 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate, let me quote Arab Egyptian Dr. Mostafa Alfaqi "In the decade of the 1950s, the cabinet of Iran's then prime minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown and his foreign minister Dr Hossein Fatemi was killed. The Shah, with his tense relations with Iraq on the Arvand-Roud (Shatt-ul-Arab) assumed the role of the region's gendarme in opposition to the government of Jamal Abdel Nasser. Therefore, the Arabs asked for the change of the name of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Gulf when they saw that the Shah of Iran was supporting Israel and was against Arab nationalism." --ManiF 10:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and here is another article from a neutral source, describing and examining the whole controversy. Cheers. --ManiF 10:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is, blatantly and obviously, all about nationalism, please don't try to pretend otherwise. William M. Connolley 10:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the United Nations would call Persian Gulf "the only historically and legally valid term for the waterway separating Iranian plateaus from the Arabian Peninsula" on two occasions to endorse nationalism as you are suggesting, not to mention that on both occasions 191 Member States of the United Nations, including all 22 Arab nations represented at the United Nations signed the documents. It's about nationalism allright, but Arab nationalism. As that article states: "Some observers have traced the origins of the campaign to change the name of the Persian Gulf to the rise of Arab nationalism and in particular, Gamal Abdel Nasser." --ManiF 11:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The UN isn't the final arbitrator for wiki; in some ways I wish it were, it would simplify the GW articles a lot. See William M. Connolley 13:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read Persian Gulf naming dispute first, this is exactly what the article explains. --Kash 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your block of infinity0

I'm not wholly convinced it violates the 3RR, and the pair of them, infinity0 and RJII, have been engaged in disputes across anarchist articles. Would you be prepared to review the block? I also thought we were supposed to block both parties in a 3RR war but that guidance seems to have gone. To be honest, I think the dispute between the two of them needs arbcom to sort it out. Steve block talk 16:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll review it. No promises as to the result, though William M. Connolley 16:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've reviewed it. Inf0's block I sustain: there are 4 reverts there; this is aggravated by his behaviour on the talk page. RJII doesn't have 4 obvious reverts: some of Inf0's are RJ adding (which isn't a revert), then Inf0 removing (which is). OTOH I wouldn't have seen Inf0's as obvious without the report; so if anyone wants to take the trouble to see if RJ has 4 non-obvious reverts, then please report them. Someone involved should probably RFC this, at the least. William M. Connolley 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair play. I have to say, I always thought re-adding removed material was also a revert, but I can't find a ref for that either. I can't see 4 obvious reverts by RJII, but I'm pondering if he's disrupting the article by tendentious editing. Sometimes it'd be nice if the arbcom could be clearer in their decisions. Steve block talk 18:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-adding removed material is certainly a revert; but as far as I can see RJ was adding new things, which isn't (I've occaisionaly come across this as a problem: one side can add in new things, which the other side wants to revert, and the reverts are all on one side, even though in any fair sense the war is even...).

I've just read the RFA decision. I wasn't aware of that. RJ gets a stern warning, at the very least William M. Connolley 18:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi William,

My name is Fernanda Viégas and I have been studying Misplaced Pages for a while now (you can see a paper I published on the subject here). I would like to ask you a few questions about your activities as a Misplaced Pages "photographer." I am fascinated by the pictorial side of Misplaced Pages and it would be great to hear about this community from one of its members. Would you be available for an informal email interview? Thanks, Fernanda.

OK, that might be interesting, try me... you could even try pasting the Q's in here, if you like, for the real wiki-spirit. Note the note I'm about to put at the top of my page, though! (ps: I looked at history flow when it first came out, and someone linked it; but I never read your paper. Thanks) William M. Connolley 19:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ps: reading the HF paper: Some edit wars last as long as 20 consecutive versions. Wimps! *I* had an edit war that lasted all though April/May 2005... , at least 48 reverts William M. Connolley 20:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SSC

Fixing that paragraph was actually on my list for the next day or two. I posted a comment on the blog entry saying so, and noting that (in general) people shouldn't trust a page that's been hammered with citation-needed tags. -- SCZenz 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone with wiki-experience would realise that at once; obviously the outside world is less sure. William M. Connolley 10:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing

You have blocked me for a 3 revert rule when all I did was change back to the AGREED version when some other guy kept changeing it, I see that you blocked him to so am I to asume that even if I change back to an agreed version that everyone has agreed upon I will also get blocked even when all I am doing is changeing back to the agreed version? (Deng 11:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

3RR doesn't recognise an "agreed version"; you got blocked for 4 reverts. The official line is, that if an article has a version agreed on by many editors, there should be no need for any one editor to go over 3 reverts. Logical, no? William M. Connolley 11:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I see but when others just give up should I also then give up? If you look at the article It has been reverted many times by many people but then I guess they just gave up but I didnt (Deng 13:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

If they agree on that version, you are entitled to leave a note on their talk page saying that there are problems on the page and asking them to take a look. Just don't break 3RR William M. Connolley 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer back again

User:Oregano is a new single purpose account and a sock of Lightbringer. It violates circumventing policy by acting as an agent provocateur and joins immediately an edit war: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anti-Masonry&action=history . --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I posted this above... will re-post it here to make things easy:

William, I don't have confirmation on his IP yet, but I suspect that we have yet another Lightbringer/Basil Rathbone/Fyodor Dos sock at Anti-Masonry. It is a new user going by the name User:Oregano. His edits are the same as User:JKWithers who you just banned for being a Lightbringer sock.

Here are the difs: JKWithers edits: here, and here

While Oregano just posted: this and this. Please run a user check on Oregano and see if he uses an IP address close to 21.68.240.98 which was the one JKW and FD used (and close to other Lightbringer Sock IPs). Thanks Blueboar 14:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar 15:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't do checkuser, you over estimate my powers. I will look at the edit patttern, though. Just have to eat my pizza... William M. Connolley 18:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked William M. Connolley 18:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. My appologies on thinking you could do user checks... Next time (and, sadly, I know there will be a next time) I will try to contact someone who can check before I pester you for the block. Blueboar 18:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, too. Annoying non-avoidable reincarnations... --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Heating up the water cycle

Water cycle has undergone a massive face lift recently. I've got the ball rolling on two themes in your back pocket - climate regulation and climate change. I'm not too hot on the former, so I shall leave it to others. FYI, in case you'd like to spruce up some basic science. Daniel Collins 01:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Glaciological flow modeling

Since you work at the BAS, I was wondering if you could recommend any real life experts in ice sheet flow modeling? I've been shown some results related to a non-dome site in the interior of Antarctica that suggest a level of flow related distortion in the ice that I find surprising, but as I have little background in this area, I'd like to talk to someone with greater expertise. Dragons flight 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

From my own knowledge, I don't know. People at BAS who might know, or who would know who does know, are Richard Hindmarsh (who does whole-ant ice sheet models, though maybe little emphasis on interior flow; rcah@obvious) or Eric Wolff (who does ice core chemistry, Dome C core etc, and therefore has to care about interior flow though not a modeller; ewwo@) or David Vaughan (who has done GPR and stuff, and maybe some modelling; dgv@). Hope that helps; feel free to use my name as an intro William M. Connolley 08:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello M. Connolley, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled by your comments and your vote of support. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Change name of Category

Hi William,

I want to change Category:Mathematical and Quantitative Methods JEL:C, which I just created, to Category:Mathematical and Quantitative Methods in Economics JEL:C, as suggested on the talk page. There's no obvious way to do this, so I thought I would seek your help/advice. Thanks in advance JQ 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered over at the cat: I don't see a move button, but I'm not very familiar with cats. William M. Connolley 10:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another suspected sock of Lightbringer

I'm sorry to bother you about this, but you are one of the admins who knows the background for this.

A new editor popped up today, User:JeffT, and imidiatly started editing Anti-Masonry. What makes me suspicious is that his edit is naught but a revert to an edit by User:Oregano (see diff), whom you banned as a sock of User:Lightbringer two days ago.

I appriciate you taking the time to look into this. WegianWarrior 07:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And now we have a User:ABrowne, whos only edits so far has been to revert to the aforementioned User:JeffT... I suspect it's a sock of a sock. WegianWarrior 11:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You must talk to this person

Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs)

He goes around to every ww2 article he can find and changes so much

The changes he makes are allways these he changes any Axis mention to german even when there were many axis in the specific battle

He changes the text after the word result to what ever he sees fit

He allways changes the casulties number he often rounds the off and sometimes just changes them completly without any source given what so ever

He almost never respond to the article talk page and when he does it is never to answer anything just to say he is right

Also he deletes often extremly important parts and sometimes whole sections in articles to make the article completley diffrent from what it originaly was

For example in the Winter War article he keeps on removeing the part that if the war hade gone one for just a few more day then Finland would have been destroyed.

Just look at his contributions and you will see all clear patern of destruction, so please talk to him and make him stop.

He cant just keep on with the deletion of paragraphs and changeing of numbers without any sources.

(Deng 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

If he breaks 3RR, report it. If you have a problem with their content edits, check WP:DR. And... English may well not be your native language, but you *must* do X is not polite William M. Connolley 09:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentance makes no sense

"but you *must* do X is not polite"

What does that mean? It makes no sense

(Deng 10:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

It means, saying to someone "you *must* do X" is... William M. Connolley 11:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh I see, ok then would you be so kind and talk with him because what he is doing is insane, he changes numbers left and right and removes things left and right. So please talk with him. (Deng 11:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

No, sorry, I don't do that, except for areas I'm interested in. I'd check out WP:DR is I were you - maybe you want the mediation cabal? William M. Connolley 12:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you get a meditation cabal on a specific person? (Deng 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Yes. Not that I've tried, but I don't see why not William M. Connolley 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Funky, will try, thanks (Deng 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

3RR

You're not obliged to believe me, but it's true. I thought 3RR didn't include this, and my conversation in my Talk page reveals it. I'm not using it as an excuse but I felt I had to say it. Miskin 14:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Macrakis had nothing to do with this article, and doesn't currently have any content disputes with neither of us (me or Kagan). The dispute on the article was settled long ago, so I don't know why he did this, but probably personal motives. Miskin 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to know the internal state of peoples minds. My answer would be, if you start reverting a lot, be sure you know the rules if you don't want to risk a block. But the staleness of the dispute saves you, as far as I'm concerned William M. Connolley 14:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User SuperDeng

I request that you do something about the user SuperDeng. His actions are childish and his aditude doesn't help Misplaced Pages. He keeps editing articles I edit for personal reasons (he clearly has something agains't me), even if there is nothing wrong with the current version. At least I have provided reasons for my edits, but....well, here are some of his reasons.

"You are allways wrong as in everything you do is wrong" (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Second_Battle_of_Kharkov&action=history) "You are allways wrong therefore anything you say or do is wrong" (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Siege_of_Leningrad&action=history)

You must do something about this.

Sincerly. Kurt Leyman.

User mr j galt

Hi - I am not sure if I should report this on the Administrator notice board, but I saw your note about RonCram's revert-warring and I thought you might look at mr j galt (talk · contribs), who is revert-warring on the same page, and has even made a plea to RonCram (talk · contribs) to join him in his revert war. He reverted six edits I had made to the page, which I had explained one by one in edit summaries, and his only explanation for the revert has been "rv csloat's POV edits - please seek consensus on the talk page." He never edited this page before and has said nothing in talk on the merits of the edits; the only point he made in talk (after reverting me twice) was to complain about my blog. Then he made his third revert at 11:34pm, issuing a warning to me to obey the 3RR in his edit summary. It's clear he is gaming the 3RR -- if I revert now, at the end of three reverts each for the new day, his version will stand (though I imagine someone else will revert him). Since he's technically obeying the rule - he won't have 4 edits in a day - can he be stopped from this behavior? He just pulled something very similar over at the Larry C. Johnson page too; check the history.--csloat 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Asking someone to help you out is not really bad - in fact a good idea. I'm not sure what to suggest... AN/I might be your best bet. William M. Connolley 08:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Pur*er

Hi there,

Noticed you were warning Purger (talk · contribs) and Purqer (talk · contribs) to pick an alter-ego. Thought you might to to check out Purrger (talk · contribs) as well. Same name (obviously), and same editing patterns. Knee-jerk reverts and troll-calling all over the place.

Good luck!

Cheers, The Minister of War 10:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as sock. Thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley 11:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin Powers by Connolley

As I stated at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, what I revoked was simple vandalism, therefore your revocation of my edit privileges violates the admin policy regarding 3rr revocations. As I am relatively new to wiki, please advise me on the procedure for requesting that your admin powers be revoked for very obvious abuse thereof (i.e. you were required to ascertain whether I had revoked simple vandalism as I had stated, before revoking my edit privileges.) pat8722 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You broke the 3RR, your edits were not simple reverions of vandalism, and William only blocked you for 8 hours, rather than 24. You should be thankful for his leniency, rather than looking to file a complaint. Guettarda 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether edits are vandalism or not, is not a matter of "voting", it is matter of "fact checking". I reverted a series of malicious repetitive edits by two vandals who had colluded to insert a CIRCULAR definition into the libertarian article in place of the non-circular one, therefore what I reverted was VANDALISM, and it was Conolley's duty to CHECK IT OUT before blocking me. What is the procedure to follow to request that his admin power be revoked? pat8722 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What you reverted was not vandalism in the sense of WP:VAND, but a content dispute. Notice that WP:3RR is only suspended for simple vandalism. As for your question, I don't think there is a defined procedure. Your best first step, if you insist, would be to bring it up on WP:ANI, but I suspect you will be either ignored or laughed at. You can also progress down the normal conflict resolution path, starting with this discussion, then going to a WP:RFC and finally to ArbCom. ArbCom can remove admin powers. But I strongly urge you to check out your position first. Read WP:VAND, especially the types of vandalism and non-vandalism. To put it bluntly, you are wrong. --Stephan Schulz 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe someone is accusing you of abusing your powers. It seems like almost yesterday that I did this, and you reacted with hostility. I wonder why this pattern keeps repeating. Alienus 22:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said about Arbustoo, JzG and Daycd on RFAR the other day, anyone who gets this many complaints is either very bad at their job or very good, and I think I know which. :-) --Sam Blanning 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I do, too, but we might not agree. Alienus 03:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I guess Pat has an answer now William M. Connolley 07:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, pat doesn't have an answer, he is waiting to hear from you as to why you blocked him without first deciding his claim that he was reverting simple VANDALISM. Vandalism at[REDACTED] is presently defined as "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." To revert from a definition that contains NO ALLEGED DEFECTS, to one that is CIRCULAR, is VANDALISM, plain and simple. This talk page indicates that I am not only one who is alleging you abuse your admin powers. Would you like to explain why I should not seek to have your admin powers revoked for abuse of the blocking power (i.e. FAILING TO DETERMINE WHETHER A REPORT OF VANDALISM IS TRUE BEFORE BLOCKING? pat8722 20:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Errm...your original question was not for an explanation, but for "advise on the procedure for requesting that your admin powers be revoked". You later repeated this request ("What is the procedure to follow to request that his admin power be revoked? "). I answered this question on William's behalf. Several others told you that you were wrong. As for your new question, I suspect William looked at it (just as I did) and decided that you were not reverting simple vandalism. In fact, this is obviously an content conflict. --Stephan Schulz 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't Connelley speak for himself? Does he hide behind you? Connelley is the only one who can explain why he reverted without ascertaining whether a claim of vandalism is true. Had he investigated, he would have determined I was reverting vandalism. Rhobite and RJII knew what they doing in replacing a definition which had no alleged substantive or grammatical defects with one which had been shown to be circular, and therefore their act was vandalism." pat8722 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't Connelley speak for himself? - no, he can't - read the note at the top of this page. Your claim of vandalism wasn't correct, your actions broke the 3rr, he quite rightly blocked you. What reason do you have to assert that he didn't check? Since you weren't reverting vandalism, it really doesn't matter if he checked or not. If he made the right decision for the wrong reason or the right decision for the right reason is irrelevant - although based on his past actions, it's far more parsimonious to assume "right decision for the right reason". By the way - have you even bothered to read WP:VAND? Guettarda 21:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear from connelley. As I indicated above by my QUOTE in paragraph 9, I know what wiki vandalism is, and, as I explained in paragraphs 3, 9 and 11, what I reverted was VANDALISM.pat8722 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not long ago, William blocked me for 3RR even though, by my understanding, I was not in violation. Around that time, he noted my unhappiness and has since been hostile towards me. Recently, I filed a 3RR against someone who was clearly in violation. In this case, William noted who did the filing and chose not to enforce the rule. The fact that he enforces it in questionable situations at the behest of his friends while refusing to enforce it at the behest of his detractors is one of the basic ways that William abuses his admin powers. Alienus 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it'll make you feel any better, but Connelly blew off my requests for explanation as well. He later erased my comments from his talk page, unanswered, while leaving a paranoid accusation. It was pretty creepy. I don't know why Misplaced Pages has such low standards for admins. Alienus 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. Erasing comments from talk pages is surely unforgivable. Nandesuka 22:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Lutsk

First, it’s always nice to add “because” part to a ruling. Especially in such ruling as you did. A ruling that lacks understandability undermines the ruling, the authority, and the rule. And this is exactly the case.

Second, I did 4 edits on April 4 on Lutsk. The first one was original, and it does not correspond to any of the previous versions of the article. In the fourth edit I intentionally left untouched the Russian name that Kuban Kazak was pushing in to avoid further reverts. Thus, I really wonder where you count 3RR violation on my side?

Third, Kuban kazak in all his 4 edits was placing the Russian name of the city in front of the Polish name. And he was the one who did it initially back in December. Also, the pattern of bringing Russian names into Ukraine-related articles is a critical part of his intent, and not a coincidence.

(Thinking the last 24h on your ruling, the only explanation I see is that whenever I start editing from one of the previous versions (but not the latest) it’s counted as a revert. If I start editing from the latest version then it’s not a revert. If this is the case then it’s simply wrong. This is not how the 3RR is stated in this wikipedia. As it stated, article’s content matters, not a particular way of getting to the content.) --Anonymous