Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:51, 27 August 2006

Norman Lowell

Regarding his date of date; the info is available if you log-in, but since you're a new membere you're probably still under moderation. Use your head. (Oh yeah, I'm definitely Norman Lowell himself...it's really me, seriously.)

Your idea that the commas following names are undesirable is interesting, but it may be they are there for specific reasons that you don't understand. My guess is that they were put there when enormous numbers of names were added by an automated procedure, and it is likely you obstructing future use of such methods.

I'd suggest you start a discussion at Talk:List of people by name, and i'm likely to go thru rapidly reverting what you've done, since doing so is easier if done earlier. --Jerzy(t) 20:02, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Misplaced Pages.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Misplaced Pages:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

• Paengi Chigi
• List of analog television stations in the Philippines
• Valentino Rossi
• Bhumij rebellion

• All-China Games
• Willie Wayne Young
• Pocket God
• Ronshausen
• Lee Dong-myung

• Šalinac
• Gradina (mountain)
• Drmanovina
• Čudinska planina
• Arbanaška Mountain

• Multiplication
• Jish
• Darren Hayes
• Karaka, New Zealand
• Crime in the United States

• Payment gateway
• Lurch (The Addams Family)
• Leon Lang
• Depsang Plains
• Cork Constitution

• Honda CR-V (fourth generation)
• 319th Reconnaissance Wing
• Eamonn Cooke
• Viktoria Baškite
• Dissolution of the Lumumba Government

• Najafgarh Lake
• Northern Crossing (shopping mall)
• National Zoo & Aquarium
• National Library of Guyana
• Namık Kemal House Museum, Tekirdağ

• Nancy municipal archives
• Julia Wieniawa
• Otto Adolf Weismann von Weißenstein
• Taaghche
• ASD Forza e Coraggio

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, show preview, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Fennec 20:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism done by 130.113.226.6 to my user page. AscendedAnathema 19:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User page

Hi. Just a note to say thanks for the reverts to my user page. Cheers TigerShark 11:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Test Templates

Please subst test templates when you use them by typing "{{subst:<name of template>}}". This helps to reduce stress on the servers. Thanks! — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA succeeded with a final consensus of 52/17/7, and receiving comments including having 'excellent potential to become a great moderator', and I am now an administrator. It did however only just pass, and I shall do my very best to rectify any of my errors, including the general belief that I should do more article work. If you have any concerns, or if you ever feel that I may be able to help you, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you!

H. James Birx

It's not an edit war, in fact (though it looks like it). User:Kolriv was blocked by another admin for a 3RR violation on another article; he has created a string of sock-puppets to evade that block, and each one is permanently blocked and its edits reverted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, you don't have to revert over such a trivial matter just because the other user is blocked. Margana 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First, it is in fact usual policy: blocked users' edits are reverted. Secondly, his edit in any case makes the article look cramped, with the stubs too close to the text. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Remeber the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews? It reached nothing even remotly resembling consensus, but it was deleted anyway? Please join the debate regarding undeleting it. I view this as nothing more as the majority imposing their will on the minority, in a blatant violation of the spirit of wikipedia --Striver 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it was deleted, which I find regrettable, but I'm not sure how to argue with Thryduulf's reasoning. Maybe you can merge some of the content into other articles. Margana 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hawaiian English

Please take note that Hawaiian English is a standardized dialect, the sole standard of English in the state of Hawaiʻi, and that in Hawaiian English, the ʻokina and kahakō are mandatory for words or names of Hawaiian language origin. Hawaiian English is stylistically appropriate for articles of Hawaiʻi-associated topics, just as British English is for the United Kingdom and standard American English (though not the official language on the national level as there is none) is for those individual U.S. states that adopt it (Hawaiʻi is not one of them—Hawaiian English is their own particular English language standard). Please keep the Hawaiian spellings in place, and expand them in article texts and titles if you know them. If associated articles don't have their words of Hawaiian origin in Hawaiian spelling—as per Hawaiian English—then the {{nothaweng}} template is put in place to clarify the issue for readers of Hawaiʻi-specific topics or for regional readers who speak, read and write Hawaiian English (including myself). If you need help, the kahakō vowels are available in the insert box when you edit, and the ʻokina can be indicated with the {{okina}} template (or the {{'okina}} template for ʻokina that is already inside a <span></span> tag). The opening left single quote (‘) is inappropriate and discouraged—ʻ is a letter, ‘ is punctuation. - Gilgamesh 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just commented on this on Talk:Ukulele. Let's continue there. Margana 13:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV-warning

Stop adding commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Misplaced Pages articles, as you did at Jimmy Wales. Doing so breaches Misplaced Pages's NPOV rules. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. -- Kim van der Linde 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not my "commentary", it's facts and sourced criticism. But you know that. So, stop removing facts from a Misplaced Pages article, as you did at Jimmy Wales. Doing so may be considered Vandalism. Furthermore, removing the same facts multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. Margana 15:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me say it this way, if you continue to be disruptibe and insisting in violating policies, you can indeed be blocked. The sources are not reliable, and the way things are written results in guild by association constructions. -- Kim van der Linde 15:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's the bullying again. I am not disruptive nor violating policies. Take it to RFC if you are no longer willing to continue discussion on the talk page. Margana 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are disruptive. There is NO consensus about inserting that quote, and you should build consensus first at the talk page, and we are still discussing. Only when there is consensus, and if it does not violate policies, it can be reinserted. Furthermore, if you keep reinserting the same quote again before there is consensus, you can and will be blocked for disruption. -- Kim van der Linde 00:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Which policy says one has to get prior consensus to add material, but not to remove it? I think you have it completely backwards. According to you, a vandal can remove anything and then other people first have to build a consensus that the material belongs in the article before they can restore it. Absurd. Margana 01:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You might find it absurd, that is your opinion, and I am fine with that. If there is doubt about info, it should be removed and can be removed by any editor and the burden of proof is at the person who wants to reinsert that. Also, read Misplaced Pages:Consensus for how things work here. And read WP:RS#Partisan_websites for more information about partisan websites and how carefull to be whith those. -- Kim van der Linde 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say anything about "if there is doubt about info", it only says if something is unreferenced the burden of proof is at the person who wants it in to provide a reference. I have referenced everything, notwithstanding your persistent misunderstanding of what "reliable source" means in regard to opinions. The quote is 100% verifiable. The thing about "partisan websites" is totally irrelevant here, since we're not using such for facts but for criticism, and criticism naturally comes from partisan sources! Margana 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The partisan websites rules are highy relevant here. -- Kim van der Linde 01:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It says partisan websites "should never be used as sources for Misplaced Pages, except as primary sources". And the latter is exactly what we're doing here. Margana 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}} Baseless block by PMA, patently false accusation of vandalism. Margana 09:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the vandalism either. I'll take it up with PMA. It's interesting that a few minutes after blocking you he announced that he was leaving Misplaced Pages. As I disagreed with you at Talk:Jimmy Wales, if you'd rather someone else handled it, add the {{unblock}} template again and I'll withdraw. --Sam Blanning 10:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems he unblocked me now. Thanks for your help. Margana 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NP. --Sam Blanning 13:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Psephos

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--cj | talk 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours - edit warring at Psephos

You've been warned about edit warring, at it seems you're doing it at almost every article you edit. You've been blocked for 24 hours. If you insist on returning and keeping up similar behaviour, I won't hesitate to block you for longer periods of time until you reconsider. -- Longhair 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Almost every article"? I am involved in exactly two ongoing disputes. And each dispute has two sides, why are you blocking me in particular? Margana 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're continously reverting the same edit, for 3 days now. it's becoming tiresome. It's called edit warring, and in my view, borderline trolling.. -- Longhair 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So is Rebecca. So is Snottygobble. And they aren't trolling because ...? The only difference is I am one and they are several. Please review WP:NOT a democracy. Disputes are supposed to be resolved by discussion, not by force of numbers. Margana 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

They aren't here gaming the system and pushing the reverts to the limit. They are several who agree on article content. I'd still like to know on what basis Carr isn't a historian, as I asked yesterday at AN/I, which is the content you keep editing out. You've not answered that. You continue to revert. I'll let another administrator remove your unblock request and if they agree to your unblocking so be it. -- Longhair 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How am I "gaming the system"? Of course the others don't have to go as close to the 3RR as I since they are several as I said. Still, the article is on their version most of the time; taken together, their side reverts exactly as much as I (obviously). The dispute (at least with those who are commenting on the talk page, I have no clue about Rebecca who refuses to do so) isn't about the "historian" wording, but about the part noting the site's denial of the existence of elections in Cuba. Margana 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what it's about. You're not dragging me into that side of the debate. My block stands. When you have community consensus to insert your edit, then do so freely, not before, and not by force. The article has been locked by another administrator I noticed, giving you all the option of the article's talk page to resolve this matter amongst yourselves there once your block expires. -- Longhair 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you know what it's about, why did you ask about the irrelevant and undisputed detail? (Those people are so arrogant that, if they disagree with just one part of an edit, they'll revert the entire edit; Rebecca's original rollback even reverted spelling corrections.) And you didn't answer my question of how I am "gaming the system". Incidentally, the page was protected by one of the people involved in the dispute, another blatant violation of policy that I'm sure you have some excuse for. Margana 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your unblock request has been reviewed and denied. This is not the first time you've been blocked for reverting and disrupting an article; I'm sorry but edit warring is never an acceptable way to handle a dispute. Please return when the block expires and explore other methods of dispute resolution. Shell 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have had exactly one lasting block before, for an accidental 3RR violation; I sat out that block without complaint. The second block was manifestly baseless and was pulled after less than an hour. This one is also baseless, I haven't violated the 3RR and the rest is just trumped-up general complaining about "edit warring", which is absurd since an edit war takes two sides and the other is not being sanctioned. If "edit warring is never an acceptable way to handle a dispute" I suggest you also tell that to Rebecca or Snottygobble, who are part of the edit war on Psephos. Surely you're not going to argue that they are less guilty because each one of them individually is reverting less than I do. That's because they're tag-teaming. But who is right in a dispute is not being determined by numbers. And I am discussing the matter on the talk page, unlike for example Rebecca, who abuses rollback without having justified herself (or even explained what exactly she's objecting to) with even one word. Margana 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See Gaming the System Also, four reverts in 24 hours and 3 minutes is a violation of 3RR. 3RR is there to prevent edit warring and you have grossly violated that. Do not put the unblock tag back in. Thank you. Sasquatch t|c 23:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the most absurd thing I've heard in a while. It's like if the speed limit somewhere is 50 and one is punished for "gaming the system" by driving 49. Or the voting age is 18 and you're accused for having the nerve to vote when you're just 18 and one day. If 24 hours and 3 minutes is not acceptable, why doesn't the 3RR set a higher limit then? 3RR refers to more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. I did not violate that. Now you'll say, it's not an entitlement to revert 3 times a day, sure, but that only means one may still be blocked for reverts under certain circumstances even if one doesn't violate the 3RR. But then that's a block for another reason, not a 3RR violation. Now what reason may that be in my case? I had to revert as much as I did because others were tag-teaming with some of them completely refusing to discuss. If those who refuse to discuss weren't reverting, the whole situation would already be much different. My reverts of those shouldn't even be counted, just like the 3RR and such doesn't apply to vandalism either. But I guess I'm talking to a wall, admin helps admin, a Rebecca can't possibly do anything wrong. Margana 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh admins can do plenty of things wrong. A few have been desysopped and a lot have been chastised. However, when you edit war, we tend not to look so favorably upon it. Why don't you just not edit war? Then we wouldn't be here in the first place. Sasquatch t|c 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, why don't I just let other people revert my edits without discussion... Margana 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. Sasquatch t|c 05:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR

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 3RR is 2 minutes outside the 24 hour period, but it was with clear intent to game the system (rv myself, too early) followed by (now).

WP:3RR: The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

Furthermore, it states:

Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

The later is clearly present here as you were gaming the system. -- Kim van der Linde 03:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. Xtra 12:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Xtra 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Margana, by your own admission there is no consensus in favour of your preferred version of Psephos. There is in fact a supermajority (i.e. everyone except you) in favour of the other version.

This is your last warning. You may revert to your version only after achieving consensus, or at least a supermajority in favour of doing so. If you continue to disrespect your co-contributors by reverting to a version overwhelmingly rejected by everyone but you, then you will be blocked.

Snottygobble 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I said there is no consensus, at all. If you can revert to a version that does not have consensus, so can I. Nor is there an "everyone except me" majority, look at Giovanni33's opinion on the talk page. And where does policy say anything about mere majorities? On the contrary, it is a common mantra that WP:NOT a democracy. Things are supposed to be discussed, not decided by force of numbers. It is evident that I am discussing and you're trying to resort to brute force. Margana 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed. It has been rejected. The option of further discussion is open to you. Instead you are edit-warring. You will be blocked if the behaviour continues. Snottygobble 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been rejected by you as much as your version has been rejected by me. Except that every neutral observer will see that your arguments are completely hollow and dishonest and accordingly you're hiding behind numbers and brute force. It's very transparent. You can't change the fact that all reliable sources say there are elections in Cuba. You can't provide a single reliable source agreeing with Carr. Instead, you're going to block me in your obsession to "protect" Carr. Well, it's your conscience you have to live with. Margana 10:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a polite warning. Your continual edit warring has you on the way to another block. Continue if you don't want to participate here anymore. Xtra 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for edit warring, per your warning yesterday. Snottygobble 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Margana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

extremely abusive 1-week block by person engaged in an edit war with me who can't justify his POV by arguments and resorts to force; there wasn't even a 3RR, he should rather block himself for reverting without discussing!

Decline reason:

Clear and cut edit warring Sasquatch t

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were warned and previously blocked for and you continued. I can't see how your objection is justified. Xtra 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you can arbitarily block people so long as you "warn" them before? If I'm being blocked merely for reverting (without 3RR violation), then you, Snottygobble, and Rebecca should be blocked as well; indeed there's more reason to block you since you refuse to discuss. Margana 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Margana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

Four separate blocks for the same offence on the same article suggests unrepentant disruption. User:JzG 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dear Sasquatch, what kind of explanation is this supposed to be: "clear and cut edit warring"? Of course I have been edit warring. So have Rebecca, Snottygobble, and Xtra. But which policy allows 1-week blocks for (non-3RR-violating) edit warring at the discretion of individual admins (as opposed to Arbcom rulings), especially of admins who have been involved in the very same edit war? As I have said on this page before, the difference is only that those others are tag-teaming so that they need to revert less per person. By my count I have (since June 6) reverted Psephos 19 times, and on the other side Rebecca reverted 8, Snottygobble 6, and Xtra 5 times. Does that mean I'm the sole edit warrior? If I'm blocked for one week, shouldn't they perhaps be blocked for a few days at least (maybe in proportion to their reverts, so that their blocks add up to one week, since together they have been reverting exactly as much as I)? And there's one other difference: I am discussing on the talk page, while Rebecca has never done so, and the others have stopped. Margana 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Margana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

request reason

Decline reason:

per above, please stop putting unblocks up or we will protect--Tawker 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tawker: What "per above"? I have challenged the above, you can't just repeat it. Please answer my arguments. I don't have to put unblocks up if any of you agrees to watch this page and continue to discuss this. Margana 07:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG: Your reason does not answer my complaint at all. The reason I have been blocked repeatedly is quite simply because my opponents in the edit war are admins and I'm not. If I was an admin I could have blocked them just the same for "edit warring". It is the height of hypocrisy and adminship abuse for admins to block a user they are edit warring with for edit warring. Margana 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But if you're the only one reverting on your side, wouldn't that suggest that you are going against consensus? Sasquatch t|c 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No. A consensus is an overwhelming majority of a large diverse group. Not something like three to one, where the three are a clique that is routinely edit warring in a tag team. To add to the irony, their point in this edit war is to "defend" Adam Carr, who is on record as saying things like "Are you willing to take on the fidelistas and have a big edit war to clean this article up?", "robust edit wars are the only alternative" etc. They are edit warring to defend an avowed edit warrior, and they block their opponents for edit warring! Margana 07:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Clique? Tag team? It is more a matter of respect for someone we know to be a hard worker on wikipedia and an effort to prevent POV from taking over pages. Xtra 07:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carr himself is one of the greatest POV warriors; he has openly said he doesn't believe in NPOV and that, instead, the editorial policy "should be that Misplaced Pages stands for secular, rationalist, humanist and democratic values, and that all articles must reflect those values, interpreted very broadly." And, incidentally, Rebecca (who lives in Melbourne like him and probably knows him off-wiki) agreed with this right away. Moreover, the whole Psephos article was started by Rebecca (formerly known as Ambi) acting as a proxy for Adam, who asked her to write it, saying "Ambi, several people have asked me why Psephos doesn't rate an article" (yeah right! well, maybe because the site doesn't even rate 1 million on Alexa, Adam), "and why I don't write one... I don't however think it would appropriate for me to write an article about my own website, although I know of others who have done so. Since you spend a lot of time on election-related articles, perhaps you might have a try." Sure enough, she promptly did a puff piece on the site, full with unverifiable information that obviously came directly from Adam ("I will send you some suggestions" ), meaning he might as well have written the article himself. He supplied the text, he knew Rebecca wouldn't make any alterations that aren't in his interest, and now Rebecca even editwars to protect that version. But of course, there's no clique here... Margana 09:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your claims still pretty much look unfounded to me. But let's put it another way: how many times have any of the other users come close to violating 3RR? And who else is supporting your view? Sasquatch t|c 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have explained repeatedly that the other users don't have to revert as much since they're more numerous. Are you suggesting any larger group can just outrevert any smaller group without having to discuss? Also, I didn't know earlier that "coming close to violating" 3RR is a blockable offense, normally you only get punished when you actually violate a rule. But having learned that now, I'll gladly refrain from "coming close to violating" it. As to who is supporting my view, at least Giovanni33 (on the article talk page) and Zleitzen (on his talk page); apparently even the fact that those don't want to get into the edit war (and risk being blocked) is now held against me. Would you prefer it if I were to convince them or others to join the reverting so that the sides are balanced, and I don't have to revert more than any one of the other side? I thought things are supposed to be settled by discussion rather than reverting, the latter being only justifiable when the other side refuses to discuss. Both the avowed principles of Misplaced Pages and the specific aim of getting a consensus on the Psephos article would be better served if, instead of me, those users were blocked who refuse to maintain discussion and blatantly abuse their adminship (Snottygobble in particular, who first protected the page to his version and now blocked me; I don't think admins are supposed to use admin powers to win edit wars). Margana 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to answer, Sasquatch? Margana 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not protect my version; that is a lie. I removed the contentious sentence altogether before protecting. This was my very best attempt to escape the curse of The Wrong Version, but evidently I am no more capable of doing so than the millions of other sysops who have fallen foul of the curse before me. Snottygobble 12:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you removed the contentious sentence which I wanted to include and you wanted to exclude. Margana 12:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the author of a ccompromise version of that sentence that I thought was both neutral and would be acceptable to everyone. Everyone but you accepted the compromise, but you reverted it five times in 37 hours. Before protecting the article, I removed the sentence altogether, rather than reverting to a version that I authored. I am perfectly satisfied that I have acted appropriately, and I don't imagine the wider community will see things otherwise. Snottygobble 12:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you preferred not having the sentence at all to your "compromise version". So you protected it on your preferred version, which is certainly worse than if you had protected it on the "compromise version", notwithstanding the fact that you aren't supposed to protect a page that you have been involved in an edit war in at all. Margana 12:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, how obvious. I'm taking this amusing but otherwise meritless discussion off my watchlist now. Snottygobble 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There we have another example of the moral bankruptcy of that user. He tries bullshitting and obfuscating things for a while, and when he's called on it, when his position is hopeless, he goes off with a bizarre snap, exactly like on the article talk page. Just for the record: yes, it is obvious. It's more than obvious. A "compromise version" is, obviously, something in between your preferred version and my preferred version. But you didn't protect on that "compromise", you protected on your preferred version - removing the sentence altogether, just as in your first revert. Margana 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again

Since you returned to your edit warring as soon as your block expired, you have been blocked for another week. You will be welcome back when your block expires, but if you continue to edit war, I will block you again. Snottygobble 00:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Margana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Snottygobble again blocking people he's edit warring with for "edit warring"; I wasn't even close to a 3RR violation, and I don't see on what basis I should be disallowed from reverting at all

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Who me? Edit warring? I haven't edited Psephos since 15 July. That's 13 days. You were blocked for 9 of them, yet you've still managed to revert to your version 12 times. I count 4 contributors reverting against you, or 5 if I include the time you reverted yourself in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid being busted for 3RR.

Evidently you think my extensive contributions to the debate on the talk page constitutes edit warring. Snottygobble 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have taken part in that same edit war, it doesn't matter if you haven't reverted in recent days (obviously others are doing it for you, so you don't have to). As such you should never protect the page or block anyone involved in the dispute - yet you did the first once and the second twice now. Margana 11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let that concern be put to rest. When the violation is a clear violation of the 3RR, it doesn't really matter who does the blocking. Anyway, I've reviewed it, and fully endorse the block. Margana: When you come back, edit in a more constructive manner or you will find yourself blocked for longer and longer periods, perhaps even indefinitely. Mangojuice 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And while we're at it, you are not to refer to edits you disagree with as vandalism. Read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and you will get a better idea of what vandalism really is. Mangojuice 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is no clear violation of the 3RR! After I already was blocked for a week (without having violated the 3RR then either), I reverted two times and was immediately blocked for another week. That seems to me I'm being effectively banned from the article. I don't see how such a thing is possible without an Arbcom ruling. And yes, removing information without explanation is vandalism. You may tell Xtra not to use "rvv" when he is removing information (like here). Margana 17:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I made a calendar error. Yes, you didn't have more than 3 reverts in a day. However, you still had an awful lot of reverts; 3 a day for two days in a row. The 3-revert rule doesn't mean it's just fine to make 3 reverts a day as long as you don't make 4. Revert-warring is disruptive and counterproductive, and you were certainly doing a lot of reverting. And yet, after your block, you immediately resumed the edit war. I've left a warning for Xtra, who was being rather inflammatory. Mangojuice 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it have made a difference if I waited a few days before resuming the edit war? Since the block was supposedly to take me out of the edit war for a week, why should I myself add additional time to that? The dispute on that article is not settled, and I don't see why I should just give up because 3 or 4 users are tag-teaming to keep their POV on the article; WP:NOT a democracy. A revert war takes two sides, so how are Snottygobble, Xtra, and Rebecca not disruptive and counterproductive? Also I would like a clear statement whether it's OK for an admin to protect a page to his desired version in an edit war he's involved in, or to block a user for (non-3RR) "edit warring" in an edit war he's himself involved in. Margana 14:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

I think the brief covers it. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Margana 18:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Margana, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your troubles with Misplaced Pages Administration. I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Misplaced Pages to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 22:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy

It'll be a pleasure to help you with your problem - it really annoys me when admins misuse their powers. I haven't had a chance to look into the case in detail yet, but will probably do so within the next few hours. --David Mestel 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another's thoughts

Hey Margana, I'm an entirely new Advocate who is getting my feet wet. I am NOT your designated advocate (see above), just someone learning the ropes. I've read the entire Psyphos talk page and have a few thoughts.

You are entirely correct that the deliberate lack of references, (even omision) of Cuba's elections makes Psyphos POV. My first question is: Can you see how others might see calling Cuba's elections "elections" is POV? Here, I think the word bias is very important. Adam is using "cold language" (There have been no elections in Cuba), not "hot language" (CUBA SUCKS!!!!!!!!!) on his site. Cold language is more subversive since it makes a bias less obvious.

The issue that we run into is WP:FAITH. These people honestly think that calling the site "unneutral" would be damaging to the article. Why?

I think it's because calling the site uneutral might imply that Dr. CArr fudges with his results. If the site represents only certain data while ignoring other data, then perhaps the article could say: "The site ignores elections which is does not consider to have been fair." Would that work for you?

I'd also like you to read WP:ATTACK. Even if the other editors are all idiots, statements like "No, it's of course just a coincidence that almost everyone who reverts on your side is Australian." will not help your point, in my view.

Thoughts?

--Wslack (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I can not see how calling Cuban elections "elections" is POV, since every other encyclopaedia or similar reliable source does so. And no, the non-neutrality of the site is not just that it does not cover elections which it does not consider fair, it is that it explicitly denies those elections even exist and clearly and deliberately misleads visitors by saying "there are no elections in Cuba" (as opposed to "there are no fair elections in Cuba" or anything like that). Nothing will help my point with this cabal of Australian neocons, but what I said is true and easy to prove since they have previously collaborated, tag-team-reverting on other Cuban-related articles and joining together to defeat an RfC against Adam Carr (even though Carr was edit warring much more than I and he actually said how "robust edit wars" are often necessary - and now those same people who defended Carr sanctimoniously accuse me of "edit warring"!). Margana 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that calling them "elections" if POV. I said "Can you see how others might see calling Cuba's elections "elections" is POV?" That is the question I'd you to answer.

I'm going to very deliberately avoid the RfC area since I'm not your advocate and I don't know enough about the process. But, I will advise you to stop worrying about how the other editors are conspiring. Let's just make sure that the article fairly represents the interest of Dr. Carr to ignore elections in Cuba, about which I literally know nothing. Does the below compromise work for you? --Wslack (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't see how others might see that, and I don't think those people actually see it that way. They are pushing their POV, and know it. I have to worry about the other editors conspiring, since they have effectively banned me from the article. Until their admin abuse is checked, I can't make any edit whatsoever to the article, because they will not only revert it, but also block me. I don't see how my version of the article was not fairly representing things, so I don't see a need for any compromise. David Mestel's wording is inappropriate, since the statement "There have been no elections in Cuba" does precisely not "show" his view that elections in Cuba are not worthy being described as such. An ignorant visitor to his site will actually assume there are no elections of whatever kind. Only those who already know of the existence of Cuban elections may draw conclusions about Carr's views. Margana 00:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people in the world have political ideas such that calling Cuba's elections "elections" demeans the democratic process. Again, I don't know. My point is that from their perspective you are pushing POV just as hard as you see them pushing POV from your perspective. Do you see how it can go both ways? Again, I'm not getting into the admin abuse issue. I'm trying to make sure the article is fair.

How would "The site deliberatly ignores the elections of the Communist State Cuba owing to belief of the owner. It does not claim to be politically neutral." do? That both states the facts (ignore, lack of claim), and provides a bit of enlightening explaination. How's that? --Wslack (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit:After more thought, I have this: ""The site does not claim to be politically neutral, and discounts by omission elections it does not give credence to, such as the disputed elections of Cuba." Does that work for you?

Some people in the world have all kinds of strange ideas. But the idea that Cuba's elections should not be called elections is not one that has any place in an NPOV encyclopaedia. My perspective agrees with, and theirs disagrees with, all reliable sources on the matter. Your wording misses the fact that the site not just ignores and omits, but explicitly denies, Cuban elections. Don't suggest "compromises" unless you can explain what is wrong with my version. Margana 12:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty. Where in my sentence is the idea that Cuba's elections shouldn't be called elections present? The word "deny" means this: To refuse to believe; reject. If Dr. Carr "refuses to believe" Cuba's elections, that implies that Dr. Carr's denial is a bad thing. That is POV, and Misplaced Pages should make no such judgements. What is wrong with my sentence? I'll change it to this: "The site does not claim to be politically neutral, and discounts by omission elections it does not give credence to, such as those of Cuba." Does that work for you? If not, what do you dispute? Regards, Wslack (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your mention of "ideas such that calling Cuba's elections 'elections' demeans the democratic process" - people who hold those ideas obviously think that Cuba's elections shouldn't be called elections, so as not to demean the democratic process. The word "deny" also means To refuse to recognize or acknowledge, and Carr's denial of the election in that sense is plain to see on the site. My version is just quoting his site, not implying anything. As I said before, what's wrong with your sentence is that it suggests omission, where there is in fact denial. This is a very different thing. A reader looking up Cuban elections at a site that says "Elections in Cuba are not included here because they do not meet our democratic standards" will conclude that he has to look elsewhere if he wants to find information about those elections. A reader looking up Cuban elections at Psephos, however, will be misled into thinking that there are no elections whatsoever in Cuba. Margana 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise using the word "deny" posted on the talk page. --Wslack (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Wslack said. It is also my opinion that filing a user conduct RfC against Snottygobble would be extremely foolish - there is little chance that it would come out in your favour. I advise you to stop reverting the page (as I see you have stopped already; I suggest that you do not resume), and we can propose a new compromise wording, such as "The site reflects Carr's views and does not claim to be politically neutral, for example specifically claiming that "There have been no elections in Cuba since 1948", showing Carr's view that elections under the communist government are not worthy of being described as such (see Elections in Cuba)." If the other participants on the user page are not amenable to this, then we can file an article RfC to gather broader community consensus. If you wish, I can propose the compromise on the talk page on your behalf, and I feel that this would probably be advisable, due to your earlier comments there. --David Mestel 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the RfC might indeed not come out in my favour is because most people looking at RfCs are admins and most of those tend to support each other. Still, the abuse by Snottygobble of both protection and blocking policy is blatant, and I want at least to lodge a formal protest over it. So are you going to help with this or not? Margana 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I will help you, but not to file an RfC - what would happen is that most editors would feel that although ideally an admin should not protect a page they are involved in or ban users that they are in dispute with, in this case they would feel that it was justified, due to your edits against the talk page consensus. What I will do is to help you agree a compromise with the other participants on that talk page. --David Mestel 11:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no talk page consensus, there is only a majority made up of a non-representative group of people who routinely support each other and wage edit wars together. If you feel you can't take my side in this matter, you obviously can't be an advocate here, so please disengage from this case to let other advocates come forward. Margana 12:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly prepared to "take your side" in this matter, and to help you agree a favourable compromise with the other editors on the talk page. What I am not prepared to do, however, is to counsel the filing of an RfC which I know would not succeed, and which would certainly not be in your best interests. --David Mestel 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked for an advocate, not a mediator. And my intention to file an RfC, whatever the result may be, is firm - I don't need your counsel for that. It's just a "Request for Comment" - strictly speaking there's no "success" or "failure" there. If the general comment is to defend Snottygobble's conduct, I will draw appropriate conclusions from that. Margana 12:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I am talking about negotiating a compromise is that I think that it is highly unlikely that the other editors will agree to exactly what you want; therefore, I think that a favourable compromise is the best we can hope for. --David Mestel 13:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't need you to intervene in the article content dispute per se, only in the matter of Snottygobble's admin abuse, which I don't intend to let pass even if the article dispute is settled in some other way. Margana 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you be prepared to accept an expression of regret from Snottygobble, acknowledging that he was wrong to use his admin tools in a dispute in which he was involved? --David Mestel 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I want a pledge that he's not doing it again. Margana 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Six Day War

These acts are aggression. Why did Egypt kick out UN forces from the border? Why did Egypt increase military activity along the Egyptian-Israeli border? Why did Egypt create a blockade? Egypt clearly wanted to seek the destruction of Israel as it did during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Had Egypt not made these hostile moves, Israel would have no reason to strike. Israel is a small country and when its enemies make hostile moves that may endanger its safety, Israel must move quickly. On a further note, no Egyptian ruler has ever offered peace towards Israel. Israel has always offered peace to Egypt. As a matter of fact, in 1979 Israel gave up the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for peace with Egypt. --68.1.182.215 05:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

re:AMA request

Hello, Margana, I'm Steve Caruso, the Acting Coordinator for the Association of Members' Advocates. My fellow Advocate, David has expressed some concern to me about some of your demands upon the Advocacy process. I want to assure you that he has your best interests in at heart in doing so, but looking over what has happened and what you have asked of him, I'm afraid that some of these may cause a significant amount of strain upon the AMA and our abilities to help you. I would sincerely appreciate it if you could articulate your concerns to me over the actual focus of the case, as well as your concerns about the case itself so that I may better understand where you are coming from, and I'm sure that we can find a mutually beneficial way to work from there. :-) Peace, אמר Steve Caruso _{(desk/AMA/vote for me)} 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been the victim of blatant adminship abuse by User:Snottygobble and merely ask for someone to enable me to file an RfC against that user, which requires that a second person must have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. All this would take is that you remind Snottygobble of his problematic protection and blocks and ask him if he will pledge not to do this again. If he refuses, you would simply certify at the RfC which I would file that you failed to resolve the dispute. Apparently that was too much of a "demand" for David. Margana 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to be rude, Margana, but the AMA does not really work in the capacity of a "stepping stone" towards higher levels of WP:DR. Our job is to try and help someone who requests Advocacy resolve the dispute without escalating things further than they need to be, and in some unfortunate cases we do have to see Wikipedians all the way through Mediation and Arbitration, but both are extremely rare. If David is refusing to endorse an RfC, there is very good reason for it, and I encourage you to work closer with him instead of antagonizing his decision. He has had much experience with helping users through Advocacy, and if he feels that an RfC would not do any good, please listen to his alternatives. He's here to help, not hurt, but the help is coming in a way that you may need to take a step back from the situation to realize.

Saying things like "So are you going to help with this or not?" or "If you feel you can't take my side in this matter, you obviously can't be an advocate here" or "I asked for an advocate, not a mediator." or "I want a pledge that he's not doing it again" are rather bravo and somewhat threatening (as I'm sure it is not your intent). Although I can completely understand your frustration in the a situation, such things have caused difficulty. If you truly wish I can find you another Advocate, but unless you are willing to work with their suggestions (and I am 90% certain that they would give you the same suggestions) I'm going to be honest and say that you may find them just as dissatisfying or worse than you found David. If you are willing to take David's suggestions into account, I'm also 90% certain that the Dispute Resolution Process will go all the smoother. אמר Steve Caruso _{(desk/AMA/vote for me)} 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if I thought that an "advocate" here would be remotely similar to a real-world lawyer in that, if there's a difference of opinion as to what the best strategy may be, it is still the client who makes the decision. I don't see what's threatening about what I said. If David is not helpful, he should simply stop wasting my time. He's not getting it at all when he focuses on the disputed article; even if the article content would be settled to my satisfaction, I'd still not want to let Snottygobble's abuses pass. Moreover, he seems to accept without question Snottygobble's lie that I "reverted against consensus" which means he hasn't even read the talk page; in short, I don't trust him. Is it too much to ask that I want to rectify blatant admin abuse, or do you not see such abuse? And given that, is it too much to ask you to be that second person which for whatever reason is required for an RfC? If your attempt to resolve the problem (and the problem is not this one article, but Snottygobble's policy violations and the threat of them continuing on this as well as on other articles) is successful, then all the better - no RfC is needed. But assuming that you won't be successful, why would you not certify the RfC? If an advocate can solve this without escalating further, great; only if he fails, this would be a stepping stone to higher levels of DR. So, yes, please open this for another advocate, but maybe let them read this talk page first, so that those who would be as dissatisfying or worse than David don't waste my time. Margana 14:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You reverted against consensus in the sense that you supported one version and Rebecca, Xtra, KimvdLinde, Cyberjunkie, Snottygobble and Adam Carr all disagreed with you. While you are perfectly entitled to dispense with my services as an advocate, I would urge you not to do so for the moment, as I am almost certain that Snottygobble will agree to express regret at his use of admin tools. The choice, however, is yours. --David Mestel 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is supposed to be determined by the discussion on the talk page, not by counting who reverts. Rebecca didn't "support" any version, she just reverted without once using the talk page. On the other hand, Giovanni33 supported me on the talk page, but didn't want to enter the revert war. And 5-2 is not a consensus, especially when 4 of the 5 (and if you count Rebecca, 5 of the 6) are an established tag-team, basically acting as meatpuppets for each other on article after article. Moreover, policy does not allow an involved admin to use his powers against anyone in a regular edit war, there is no exception for people supposed to be reverting against consensus. So for the last time, are you going to help me trying to remove this threat of continued abuse? A statement of regret doesn't assure me he's not doing it again. Margana 11:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I could probably persuade to include a statement that he will not use admin tools in conflicts he is involved in in future. --David Mestel 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK then, have a try. Margana 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken to Snottygobble by e-mail. --David Mestel 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Snottygobble made this statement on my talk page, in which he acknowledges that he was wrong to protect the page or block you, and undertakes not to do so again. --David Mestel 06:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That should do with regard to Snottygobble. If he is not true to his word, I hope you would then certify at an RfC that you tried and failed to resolve the problem. Now, however, there's a possibility that someone else in his group will take over from him. So I would ask you to watch this talk page for a while, in case I'm blocked again and I can only edit here. Possibly the same procedure will have to be repeated for some other involved admin who might abuse their powers in this case. Margana 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I will continue to watch this page, in case further assistance is required, but will continue to watch this page. In addition, just to make sure, if you are blocked, please e-mail me in case I miss the message on your talk page. I will, however, close the case on WP:AMARQ pro tem. --David Mestel 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a word of advice: remember that if you do edit war on the page, you may well be blocked by another admin from AN/I. --David Mestel 07:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales edit

It's not the source, it's the characterization. To distill an entire EB article down to those few words -- "essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic" -- is in and of itself a POV addition to the article. People can decide on their own what the essential nature of objectivism is, including by following the link to the Misplaced Pages article.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
(crossposted to Talk:Jimmy Wales)

Esteemed Opinion

In your esteemed opinion, is page ownership of the Jimbo article a possible symptom of Adminitis? Addhoc 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the powers and virtual immunity enjoyed by admins often leads them to abuses in order to control an article. And I suppose some admins are particularly sycophantic to Jimbo, in the hope of getting appointments to even higher positions, or even share in his parallel for-profit ventures (like Angela at Wikia). Margana 21:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Help

Now Philwelch has blocked me because I reverted at Jimmy Wales, in which edit war he is involved. Same situation as with Snottygobble. Margana 00:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This user repeatedly moved information selectively from different sections to create one section that read as follows:

Wales has been a passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which Encyclopaedia Britannica describes as "essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic". From 1992 to 1996, he ran the electronic mailing list "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".

In a December 2005 appeal for donations to Wikimedia, Wales explained his motivation for his Misplaced Pages work by saying "I'm doing this for the child in Africa."

creating an obvious bias through selectively compiling information from different sources and, in fact, different decades. This is not a content dispute, this is trolling and this is a deliberate attempt to turn Misplaced Pages articles into hatchet jobs on their subjects. Given Margana's past history I am not inclined to give this user much leeway with this nonsense. — Philwelch t 01:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Holiday

I'm going on holiday until Saturday 26th August. PLease contact Steve Caruso if you have any problems in my absence. --David Mestel 06:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Margana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

massive violation of blocking policy by Philwelch, who was involved in the same edit war; he even attempts to justify the block and its length with previous blocks by Snottygobble, which were equally invalid as Snottygobble himself has had to admit

Decline reason:

So, let me get this straight: you think the block is justified, but was applied by the wrong person? That, in effect, is what you are saying here. You've given no arguments that your editing (creating what in the UK we call "libel by juxtaposition") was right, just that the wrong person blocked you. Would it help if I unblocked you, then reblocked you for the same amount of time? --➨ ЯEDVERS 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, that's not what I'm saying, it is just the most obvious reason why the block is wrong (because the blocking policy is explicit on this). Maybe you can explain where you see "libel" in my edit. Philwelch himself didn't make that accusation, otherwise I'd have been glad to discuss it. Margana 16:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Margana has been a vocal proponent of obeying Misplaced Pages policy strictly and to the letter. Margana has been blocked multiple times for edit warring. — Philwelch t 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Margana, hope you enjoyed your holiday. Sadly, adminitis has claimed another victim. Addhoc 15:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

David Mestel is on holiday, not me. Philwelch just makes a pretense of leaving, maybe to avoid sanctions over his adminship abuse, but he'll be back. Margana 15:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read that properly. If Philwelch does return, hope he is less inclined to block first ask questions later. Addhoc 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC is being prepared against you. Do you wish me to advocate for you? --David Mestel 05:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still blocked. For now, I'd like you to repeat the Snottygobble procedure for Philwelch. You should ask him to unblock me and pledge not to violate blocking policy again; if that fails, I will prepare an RfC against him. Margana 16:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)