Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 12:51, 3 August 2010 (→Vandalized articles: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

User:Bertport

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Since you blocked twice my access to English wiki, I have no choice but contact you anonymously. Firstly, I want to express my deepest regret and disaffection for the two blockages. How could people jump to a judgement only by listening to one side's words? Don't you know the villain always sues his victim before he himself is prosecuted. It's User:Bertport who made the very first revert at 00:19, 19 February 2010 while I, mainly with User:Clemensmarabu, had been contributing days to the article Tibet. I never see he does any constructive edit but only undoes others' contributions or stealthily stuffs his biased words.

I waited one week to finally edit the article, if you please have a look at what content is restored , you'll tell at once good from bad. Both sides' opinions are presented and historical events are scholarly argued, thus I wonder where come from the courage of Bertport to revert such an edit and his boldness to accuse others anticipately. Regards. -- LaGrandefr

Watch out

See this. Not another interest party flood. Just a heads up ;) Michi

Talkback

Hkwon topic ban

I am an uninvolved editor who came in response to the kimchi RfC. I do not entirely agree with Hkwon's POV or his editing practice but to dish out an indefinite topic ban for a minor edit war is way over the top. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't think I'd assess that as a minor edit war. Actually, FutPerf, I was wondering if really topic banning only one user is really the way to go here; it looked like there was excessive edit warring from other users also. Is there a reason we shouldn't be issuing similar bans to other long-term edit warriors here? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here, but the page WP:TOPICBAN states "Topic bans are a kind of editing restriction imposed either by the Arbitration committee or by community consensus as usually determined on one of the two active administrative notice boards: WP:ANI or WP:AN. " I don't recall seeing any discussion of this issue on either ANI or AN, nor does it show up in the archives. Can you please explain how you are able to topic ban Hkwon (as you claimed to have done on his talk page here: ) without getting community consensus first? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(I fixed a diff in the comment above). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll say to you that you are now officially banned from issuing any more topic-bans or otherwise passing yourself off as a person that can issue such things. I would like to say to you that if you violate this ban, you will be perminantly banned from all of Misplaced Pages. But I won't because that'd be wrong, I only say so for rhetorical purposes. Chrisrus (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, talk page comments meant solely to inflame. How nice. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The current disruption at the Korean cuisine articles is part of a long-standing pattern of disputes that has in the past been so violent that I've taken the stance that the whole topic area is de facto under a regime of "discretionary sanctions" similar to that of Eastern Europe, Israel-Palestine and other ideological hotspots, i.e. allowing admins largely carte blanche to intervene with whatever sanctions are necessary. Arbcom or no Arbcom. Whenever I've taken unconventional measures in this field (e.g. at Liancourt Rocks and other articles), the community has upheld them. A topic-ban like the one I imposed is essentially just a delayed disruption block under the normal blocking policy. I'm saying to this editor: "I've got enough reasons that would justify blocking you for a longish time, but for now I won't as long as you stay out of the topic area". We can of course take this to a noticeboard too, if you insist. Or, if you insist I do things by the book, I can just block the person right away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why him? Why not the others in the dispute? Because they, in violation of policy, type in thier personal attacks in Korean, and you didn't use Google translate or some such? Just to mention one thing they did wrong. The effect of banning him will be to support those who wish to hide, dismiss, or completely blank all mention of dogmeat in the article on Korean cusine, instead of a compromise to put the practice into it's proper perspective, probably not as prominent as Hkwon would like it, but not swept under the rug as Melon-whozits would probably like to see done. If we let the sources lead, there should be a place in any article on Korean cusine to mention their fifth largest livestock animal, albeit one not at the same level of consumption as beef, chicken or pork, or even duck. These Koreans have very different points of view as to how they want this practice portrayed to the rest of the world, some don't care what foreigners think, and would treat it like any other meat, which is probably going too far, and those (who you would de facto support) who attack any mention of it as lies designed to smear Korean people, who want the practice hidden from foreigners like you and me. That's censorship; that's going too far; that's anti-Wikipedian. I hope you will carefully review the entire incident and see what happened and ban no one or both sides for the sake of what's good for Misplaced Pages in the long run. Chrisrus (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

I don't know anything about Hkwon's activities at other Korean topics besides kimchi, where I've been working closely with him to try to resolve his concerns. I agree that at times he moved into edit warring there, although so did his "opponents," and some of them made comments that I believe were actually intended to provoke Hkwon into edit warring and incivility. And I do think that he was unnecessarily stuck on (what I perceive as) a very small change in wording. But I also believe that he had sincere, good faith reasons for his desired wording.. But I don't see that behavior as being so egregious as requiring a unilateral topic ban.

Now, looking at your userpage, it seems like you embrace the use of non-standard practices to improve the encyclopedia. Maybe I'm too new here too appreciate that. To me, it seems like the project is hurt when something as huge as a topic ban (for Hkwon, I would argue is practically a de facto full ban, as I believe editing Korean articles is his reason for being here) is decided without community consensus, it pushes people to believe that sincere disagreement isn't really tolerated at Misplaced Pages. With a community consensus (or an absolutely clear violation of policy, like in the case of vandalism or spamming) the decision acquires legitimacy. It lets us say "The community does not tolerate this type of editing." Instead, Hkwon can now say "That FP guy is totally abusing his power" or, even worse, "I bet Sennen Goroshi or Melonbarmonster2 put him up to this" (since SG, for instance, actually threatened topic banning, and almost seemed to be encouraging it), even though neither of those is necessarily true.

I can totally get why it seems to make sense, especially on nationalist topics, to follow your "rogue" approach. I've looked through the history of several Korean related pages (like Liancourt Rocks), and I'm quite familiar with the debate outside of Misplaced Pages and how, um, insane, it gets. But again, I'd rather have either 1) the community come down on Hkwon and say "No More," or 2) Arbcom declare Korean articles to be under 1RR, just like Balkans or Gaza articles.

I don't know where I want to go with this. My inclination is to take this to AN, because it just seems out of line for an administrator, and, if it's not, you're not in any risk any way. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of running to a noticeboard to fix this type of issue, and I also don't want, as you implied, to go through a long drawn out process if your apparently long and notable experience is correct--that no matter what he'll end up topic banned anyway.

What do you think? Do you really believe Hkwon's behavior was so much worse than the others he was warring with that he deserves a topic ban, and that said ban will really be sustained by the community? Do you really believe you are correct to circumvent policy? Do you really believe that such circumvention is in the best interests of Misplaced Pages? Your responses are appreciated, as they will help shape (although not necessarily control) my thinking on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. there were several uninvolved editors, of which I was one, who came to the kimchi article as a result of the RfC and who were trying to mediate in a simple but intractable dispute on whether kimch was 'a fermented food'.

Can I suggest that you lift the ban on Hkwon and allow the uninvolved editors to continue the mediation, with the strong suggestion that all the involved editors refrain from editing the article and on the understanding that if we get nowhere we can hand the topic back to you for tougher action. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at mediating this, but it didn't appear to me that it was stopping Hkwon from edit-warring and from personal attacks. In any case, I don't think it's much use talking about this before Hkwon himself has commented on the matter. But I'll keep your suggestion in mind. – BTW, since people mentioned other disruptive participants, I was in fact considering some more sanctions too, but in the end those didn't seem quite so pressing to me, yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall be careful in what I say here because I am not sure this is any of my business, I don't like to make other someones talk page into a battlefield and more accusations are not going to help anything, I won't even comment on if I support the topic ban or not. What I will say is that I have previously had a topic ban in place on my account, it probably saved me from an extremely long block due to me not having contact with the editors I was in heated and continued dispute with. I also imagine when myself and the other editor in dispute were blocked, it brought some stability and peace to the articles that we were causing problems on. If the disputes on the kimchi article had resulted in major improvements along with the edit wars, then there might be some arguments for placing sanctions on the article, rather than on an editor, but as far as I can see the disputes have not resulted in any improvements. I can't speak for Hkwon, but if I was either going to be the recipient of a lengthy block or a topic ban, I know which one I would choose. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that either this restriction should be applied fairly upon the disputants, particularly Melonbarmonster2 who has been engaging in controversial edit wars in a multitude of articles related to Korean cuisine, or that this restriction shouldn't be applied at all. I share Hkwon's POV on the basis of many reliable sources that fermentation is a central element in the definition of kimchi, and after you topic-banned Hkwon, Melonbarmonster2 has threatened me of the same happening to me because of my views on this subject. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. Your topic ban on Hkwon was unjustified and unfair. It is not the job of administrators to decide who is right in an argument and then ban those that they consider to be wrong, this is not how WP works, or at least how it is meant to work. Neither is it particularly useful to ban all editors or lock the article; WP is the encylcopedia that anyone can edit. Please let me stress again that I am an uninvolved editor, along with several others who have commented here. I have no views on whether kimchi is fermented or not, in fact I had never even heard of it before I came to the RfC. I must ask you again to unblock Hkwon so that the normal dispute resolution process can proceed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, neither is Hkwon currently blocked, nor did I sanction him because I decided who was right in the argument. In fact I have no more of an opinion about kimchi than you have. Hkwon was sanctioned because he was edit-warring and acting disruptively in the debate. He is free to comment on the situation and explain how he plans to conduct himself more constructively in the future. Once he's done that, we can talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How's the situation at the article3 dogmeat changed, Mr. Perfect? Chrisrus (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? How'd Hkwon get blocked for edit warring/personal attacks 4 days after his last edit? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixing now what I probably ought to have done right away, instead of the "topic ban" attempt that people aren't liking. Since he hasn't been editing (neither continuing to edit-war, nor editing constructively, nor commenting), the situation hasn't changed at all: if he were to resume editing now, we have no less reason to expect he'd immediately continue the disruptive pattern, than we had four days ago. Therefore, the block still serves exactly the same preventative purpose it would have served if I had imposed it then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tillman

Since you were the one who removed Tillman's post at Talk:CRU email controversy, I thought you might want to take a look at this. Best, NW (Talk) 21:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning

THanks for the warning. I have no problem with stricter limitations on reverts as long as they are applied consistently and I have advance notice of them. To that end, I have to correct your statement that I revert warred as bad as Hkwon the "last few days". Hkwon revert warred with 3 or 4 separate editors all over the same dead horse issue for weeks on end though now it seems Cydevil has taken on the cause. I did make three reverts in response to a revert by Cydevil on the 24th but all the spurts of reverts in the history page I have been involved in were regarding different article issues most of which were all resolved with discussed compromise and consensus. The latest example of this was my exchange with Vulcan on the 22nd. Yes we reverted but we both engaged in discussion and came to a compromise and the article was improved as a result. Older dispute/issues resolved include discussion over TED material.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I direct you to unknown people

That made my day :) --Taivo (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This should really make us quiver in fear :p --Taivo (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you "semi-protect" the Istanbul article for the time being from anonymous users. It is constantly attacked and vandalized. I have never seen such constant onslaught on a city article.

Could you "semi-protect" the Istanbul article for the time being from anonymous users. It is constantly attacked and vandalized. I have checked the history of editions and I have never seen such constant referenceless changes and attacks on a city article in Misplaced Pages, I have never seen such constant onslaught on a city article, not even hotly contested Jerusalem comes close! Any contribution one makes is either changed with no explanation or erased altogether.

Even the climate section I (currently) last edited, has been previously constantly changed with no reason and attacked. Even this section seems to be a "hot political issue"!

I am a new user orginally from Turkish Misplaced Pages and try to base the editions I make on credible sources.

Thank you if you could protect this articles for more well meaning users for a while.

Menikure

Comment on your observation

Of course, the "point violation" here is that Russavia is making the point that nobody, including the person he was "interacting with", seemed to have been bothered by his edits and that they are not objectively disruptive. As a matter of principle, in an issue like a no-interaction ban, I'd go by the principle of nemo iudex sine actore: sanctions are warranted only if the person who the sanction was supposedly meant to protect has actually complained, or at least there is indication they felt offended/annoyed or whatever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like you to note that I explicitly refused to be Russavia's policeman regarding his offensive relitigation of EEML as part of his comments supportive of Miacek. Don't take that to mean I'm not furious. Do take that to mean that coming up on 7 months of my topic ban there are editors who believe we can behave better and editors who have yet to demonstrate the same. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your comments on that "Climategate" image. I've already explained the NFCC issues, as have others; I'm afraid this isn't so much an example of people not informing themselves as of people being in denial about what NFCC requires. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

Your accusation is itself a disruption. If you have a problem with me, please take it up on my talk page. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you watching what's going on at Dogmeat, not to mention Korean Cusine?

Well? After your Hkwon ban, how do you feel about it, and what, if anything, are you planning to do about it? I see you as indirectly responsible, Hkwon was so exasperated by this type of thing that he did what he did, which was wrong, I suppose, but now that he's gone who's going to balance out the situation with the Koreans who take the equal but opposite approach? The system is out of balance because you took away one side of it, as Alison and I are not Korean we can't be as effective for complicated but not too hard to understand reasons. Please do something. Chrisrus (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your tone is not of a sort that would make me particularly enthusiastic to come to your help. No, I am not continuously observing whatever is going on on those two articles. If you have something particular to complain about, please be specific. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine. If you did take a look, you might see the ramifications and damage to Misplaced Pages that can happen when loose cannon adminstators go around not following procedure and rashly banning people without being privvy to all the background and never bothering to get any input and then walking away and leaving a filthy mess and not even bothering to look back and see the results of their actions. Chrisrus (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Come back here once you have something constructive to say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dodona

I added this sentence then this one

based on this source and then Athenean removed the Paleo-Balkan wording and moved it below despite chronological arrangement. Now he's telling me that somehow my edits are the same and he's suggesting that because of that one should go. I'm also trying to convince him that obviously the source when mentioning southern and northern tribes refers to northern Paleo-Balkan(Illyrians, Thracians) and southern ones(Greeks). This is becoming a discussion with too many or arguments, so could you please once again step in and offer your opinion regardless of its content here or here.--— ZjarriRrethues —  20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian language and User:Windyhead

This guy is like a small fly in the soup. You want to ignore him, but you can't quite dig him out with your spoon and he just keeps buzzing and wiggling around. --Taivo (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused

Future, I've received your message .
You've said "Your recent articles such as Defense of Krk airport and Battle of Gospić are highly non-neutral in tone and content".
Can you, please, be more precise? You'll make it easier for me.
Please, assume good faith.
I've tried to use as much as possible precise words to avoid negative etiquetting of the whole communities, but to point to the perpetrators.
So, where do you see non-neutral elements (highly non-neutral????!!) in those articles? Which sentences?
I've referred to the sources I've listed on the bottom of the page.
If you find any line doubtful, please, add {{fact}}.
I've been working so with others here for years, and it worked fine for all involved sides.
Grammar incorrect? Noone's perfect. I try my best, someone always corrects my errors.
I correct others, others correct me.
That's what makes this project as cooperation. Kubura (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hkwon

Do you think you should review your actions here, in terms of the timing of the block you have imposed? Conceded his edits were sanctionable, but the topic ban which you attempted to impose clearly did not gain community support. The block which you then imposed was in fact implemented four days after his last edit, and I suspect that if it were necessary to defend this block you would find it difficult to do so. I have not unblocked (although I considered it) but it might be a sensible approach if you were to reconsider and start over with a level one warning. Not trying to interfere, but his unblock request and comments about it are attracting some attention. --Anthony.bradbury 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I hadn't actually seen he had made an unblock request. Will have a look. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on his page. If you feel strongly that the block lacks consensus or backing in policy, feel free to overturn and no hard feelings. However, personally I'd still prefer some conditions. I don't think a "back to level 1" warning would have been appropriate here, as he had two prior blocks on related problems during the last month alone. Thanks for your collegial approach to this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that there are two sides to the discussion, and I will personally just let the block take its course. --Anthony.bradbury 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to it

I was about to close down the discussion myself.--*Kat* (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Better?

"Better", huh? Would you like to discuss that with my fiercely loyal pet monster ? Bishonen | talk 17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

(pausing) - I wonder if we should generalize WP:NLT into WP:No Monster Threats. Lawyers are a form of monster... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Being threatened with a projectile-vomiting monster has got to count as cruel and unusual punishment, surely? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Down, Zilla! Stop patting the nice man! That's enough! Bishonen | talk 20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

O dear. I don't suppose my little frightened penguin will placate the mighty zilla easily. But what about the teddybear? You see, it has already lived through so much past and is still so present, I'm sure it has more future than 'zilla seems to imply. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Zilla always had a soft spot for the little This User Is Afraid. Tenderly gathers the penguin and the teddy into her pocket and leaves several fishapod plushies in their place. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

Thank You

24 hours of rest at Ukrainian language from User:Windyhead. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Windyhead block

I understand where you're coming from, but would a final warning on that have been a bit less BITEy? It's not clear that they had been warned formally before other than 3RR issues in the past. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

hmm, I'm not sure "bite" applies to editors who've been around as long as this one, and who have had previous edit-warring warnings. He knew perfectly well that his actions were being perceived as hostile and disruptive, he got a formal warning from Taivo himself earlier today and continued with several further hostile edits afterwards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Extenze < Viagra < Cialis < Fleshlight

I was following the conversation on Lar's talk page and would like to share my thoughts a bit (hope you don't mind). First off, I don't think you are biased, perhaps Lar is privy to information I am not, but I have seen you warn people on both sides of the issue - maybe I am simply being ignorant here. Second, I don't think Lar is biased either, but I also understand that it is a very natural, perhaps inevitable, reaction to respond to extremism with extremism. Has Lar done this? Yeah, I think he'd probably admit to being more acidic than usual and I suspect he will detox from the area after the Arbcom proceedings are over. I'm guilty of this as well.

I think a problem, probably in all contentious areas, is that people tend to make snap judgments. No side on any debate is going to be right 100% of the time, but if an admin shows up when one side is correct they may tend to dismiss the other side forevermore. It is difficult to find admins that can walk that fine line without crossing over to one side, but generally I think Lar has done a good job. I just hope that you and Lar can find a way to see eye to eye on things a bit more and hopefully by understanding how people react to extremism you can both avoid that pitfall and lend a friendly hand to those teetering on the edge. Happy admining. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to find this subject title offensive considering it involves a living person. TGL: Can you please refactor this discussion's name? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? That's offensive? That's more like a compliment! Anyway I've deleted it, but it really was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Perhaps it'd be less offensive if I replaced it with a dead person? ;) TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your debate is amusing, especially since I still have no idea what either the original or the new heading is supposed to mean ;-) But I thank you for your thoughts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Korea under Japanese rule

There is a disagreement whether a translation of the native name belongs conventional_long_name field in Template:Infobox former country. As you had participated in the discussion with similar topic in the past, I'd like to ask your participation. Thank you. --Kusunose 04:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved discussion

(Moved from User talk:Lar)

I noticed you still haven't answered the question about ChrisO's conduct, both in incivility and 3RR violations. Why is Minor4th and I in your sights, but blatent violations such as his are not? The only reasonable conclusion is that you are biased. Please explain why you won't address this. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

First off: I don't do civility sanctions. Not my line of business. I find civility policing for the most part inane, unproductive and too often used as a club to silence vigorous debate. If you want sanctions against somebody for incivility, you need to ask somebody else. I didn't propose sanctioning you or Minor for incivility, so I don't see why you would have any problem about me not sanctioning others for it.

That said, here's your diffs: "(1) having to deal with someone whose knowledge appears to be well below high school level.; (2) Frankly I would prefer you not to, given your previous editing in this topic area. - warned by Lar to be more civil; (3) Minor4th has been making false claims that I've been "edit warring". (note that the page was then protected for edit warring); (4) See salami tactics for what's going on here., salami tactics being a derogatory reference to divide and conquer; (5) *Bollocks. He said nothing of the sort. Don't invent things, Mark." Starting from the end. (5) was an error for which he later apologized. Dealt with. (4) is not objectionable in the least, certainly not incivil. In (3), Chris is right, you are (and were) wrong. Chris made two reverts, possibly three (technically). Here's the history of the page:

1. Chris starts the page
2. several others, including Minor4th, make bold edits. (Legit in principle; no more and no less unilateral than anything Chris did before and after; but in Minor4th's case, partly quite tendentious)
3. Chris' second sequence of edits, involving partial reverting and partial reworking of Minor's edits (that's technically a revert, but much less aggressive/unconstructive than a blanket rv)
4. Minor4th blanket-reverts everything Chris did, citing "BRD". (Of course, if M. reverts here, they can hardly complain of Chris reverting earlier. And a blanket rv is always more of an aggressive act than a partial reworking revert.)
5. Chris blanket-reverts. (Yes, that's an aggressive, edit-warring-type rv, but not worse than the previous)
6. You blanket-revert. (That's clearly edit-warring at this point, and your invoking of "BRD" was abusive: BRD is never an excuse for second and subsequent reverts, no matter whether the other side has kept to the BRD protocol or not.) At this point, it's two reverts for Chris and two for you and Minor. You were even. I'm counting the two of you together, because you were clearly acting in tag-team.
7. Chris resumes editing, marking his edits as attempted compromises. I don't know how much in that sequence was technically again a revert, but I have no reasons to doubt it was indeed a good-faith attempt at finding acceptable compromises, and as such not aggressive edit-warring.
8. Chris reverts several times against a putative Scibaby sock. Reverts of banned users don't count, as you well know. You may disagree with the practice of treating apparent Scibaby socks as such on sight, but that's the usual practice, and two entirely neutral admins subsequently validated Chris' decision (by blocking the sock, and protecting the page). Your claim that the page was subsequently "protected for edit-warring" is patently wrong: it wasn't protected for edit-warring, but semi-protected against the socks. That vindicates Chris' edits, rather than reflect negatively on them.

So, your or Minor's claims that Chris was edit-warring were baseless, and Chris was right to complain about them.

Going back to diff (2): not incivil in the least. Certainly not particularly friendly, but not incivil. Finally (1): if Chris feels Marknutley's poor knowledge of history is a pertinent fact in explaining the problems in the matter of that RfC, then of course he needs to be able to talk about that problem in some way. It's never a particularly friendly thing to talk about somebody else's incompetence, but when it's pertinent it's necessary. I don't know what particular gaps in knowledge M.n. had shown (something about the democratic constitution of early north American states, I gather), and I don't know if those things are supposed to be high school level stuff in US education; maybe that phrase was a bit of a rhetorical exaggeration, but judging from what I've seen of M.n. I can't say I find it implausible that the charge was correct in principle.

So much for that. And no, I for one will not userfy that article for you. I didn't "cherry-pick" links but gave you exactly those that were obviously pertinent: the two reinsertions of the offending material. If you need anything else in particular, let me know and I'll look it up.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit-warring complaint was about a completely separate page, see this diff, at Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, with ChrisO complaining here after Minor4th brought up the same editing pattern as in the Virginia article. The diff I cited originally had nothing to do with the article you referred to, but to the Monckton article, as is clearly shown in the diff. As to the purported sock, the evidence consists of "The usual" and there has not been a check-user completed. If this is a new user, they may have been fed up enough to just walk away. If it is a sock, then by all means, they should be blocked, but blocking someone based on "The usual" is by no means providing any useful evidence of sock-puppetry, and the problem with the activist faction is that anyone that disagrees is subject to being sent to an SPI. The supposed sock in this case removed a sentence that was unsupported by a ref, and the very first response by ChrisO was that it was an obvious Scibaby sock. How is it obvious from one edit that the user was a sock? As far as diff #1, that is obviously an uncivil remark, stating that someone has less than a high school education. It is blatant. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I must have misread something then about the edit-warring claim (probably because Minor kept making similar accusations about the other article too, IIRC). Okay, I count four reverts by Chris, if I include the first he made against the IP, towards the end of all that. Apart from that, I see several people trying to make productive edits in quick succession, but no hostile edit-warring between them, and Minor4th (as Chris rightly remarked) making shrill protests from the sidelines, not because he had any concrete objections against Chris' edits, but because it was Chris who was doing the editing. A neutral administrator dealt with the situation, explicitly declining to sanction anybody, evidently because he recognised it was essentially a constructive and good-faith editing spree between several persons. So, what's it to me? And yes, when Minor4th claimed Chris had made 7 reverts, he had in reality made 4, so Minor's accusation was, indeed, false. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to get anyone sanctioned and my concrete objection was that Chris reverted 7 times. I was not the only one who complained either -- and the reason my shrill objections were being made about Chris is because it was Chris who was reverting like a madman and making edits at the speed of light when the article had just come off protection. Are you really going to say that editing was not appropriate? It's why the article got protected again. A neutral editor dealt with the situation by protecting the article again -- my accusation as indeed not false at all. It was 7 reverts. Diffs , , , , . . , Ok, actually it was 8 reverts and that is not including the one BLP revert. Minor4th 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Reverts of banned users don't count, as you well know" is unclear? And I thought we were making a fresh start? "I... apologize as well for not assuming good faith in your actions. I have decided to make a more concerted effort to assume good faith on your part and see if that helps the situation." That didn't last long, did it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to fight with you, and I have assumed good faith since I said that -- so in that spirit, I am not going to counter what you said or try to make another point at all. I would not have mentioned you except for the fact that I'm being taken to task over this past incident with you. So maybe we all ought to just let it lie? Minor4th 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Sleeping dogs and all that. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: subsequent edits in a row always count as one when it comes to counting reverts. I thought you knew that. If you didn't, you know it now. – Chris: was the IP on the Monckton article also a banned user? (not that it matters much now, just for the sake of clarity.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. The IP appears to have been Monckton himself, who was indeffed a long time ago for legal threats and chronic COI problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read any of the above but I did want to apologize for calling you "she" -- it has nothing to do with you blocking me. I think it is the word "sunrise" in your user name and for some reason that made me think female. Minor4th 06:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. BTW, the explanation for the "sunrise" is here . Oh and, I only noticed afterwards that Lar had been referring to you as "she", when I'd been using "he" all the time, so sorry if that was wrong too? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, not wrong. Lar calls me he, she and they. I don't bother correcting. Minor4th 06:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I called BRD, it was my first revert. I posted that on the talk page even before I made the edit. Minor4th 06:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, never said anything against that. It was a first revert. Not a very constructive one in the context (as I said, that's an issue of blanket revert vs. going to the effort of making only partial reverts), but in and by itself it was obviously nothing to worry much about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, for the record, my comments concerning Marknutley's lack of knowledge related to some of the diffs that Pmanderson posted, especially this one in which MN asserts that "The Greek city states were not democracys ." Honestly, the mind boggles - who does he think invented the concept of democracy, and where does he think the word came from? You would think that someone who wants to edit an article called List of wars between democracies would actually have some idea of history and (even if he doesn't know all the details) would be sufficiently motivated to open an encyclopedia - heck, even look it up on Misplaced Pages - and get the facts. This is extreme incompetence, both in terms of a lack of knowledge and also in terms of an apparent intellectual laziness in not being willing to look up a basic fact that a high school kid should know. You've heard of the sword-skeleton theory? Case in point. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris that is really not nice at all. Please don't be so insulting. Minor4th 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it has to be said. If Marknutley does not know enough about a subject to be able to contribute effectively he should either (a) educate himself about it or (b) stay out of it. The problem is that either of those outcomes requires him to be aware that he is not contributing effectively. It's for just this reason that I avoid editing articles where I don't know anything about the subject matter. I'm well aware that I'm not competent to contribute to them. There's a famous learning model (see ) which I think is relevant in this sort of situation. In the language of that model, Marknutley seems to be at the stage of "unconscious incompetence" in relation to historical knowledge. If he becomes aware of this, he can get to the stage of conscious incompetence. This is the stage I'm at with topics I don't know enough about to be able to contribute competently. I assume by default that I'm consciously incompetent in a new topic area, unless it happens to be one I'm already familiar with. Mark seems to assume competence in all topic areas, which is why he makes ridiculous howlers like the one I pointed out above. If Mark wants to be able to do competent editing on such topics, he needs to study it so that he can achieve conscious competence and ultimately, hopefully, unconscious competence. The whole point of an RfC is to point out where an editor is failing; by doing so, he has a chance to remedy the problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement request

Hi, I've left a reply on the AE page regarding your comment and explaining why the report has been made. Varsovian (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalized articles

Dear FPaS, you might have noticed the current vandalizing efforts targeted at the established and stable versions of Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising and Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki. Best, Apcbg (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I saw something light up on my watchlist but didn't look much into it. If you need an admin to deal with it, you'll need to find somebody else please – unfortunately, I'm still prevented by Arbcom of taking any action myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)