User talk:Mirv/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives by date
archive1 (27/01/04)
archive2 (pre-12/04/04 history)
archive3 (04/12–07/29/04)
archive4 (07/29–20/09/04)
archive5 (20/09–26/09/04)
archive6 (27/09–03/11/04)
archive7 (03/11–22/11/04)
archive8 (22/11–05/12/04)
archive9 (05/12–17/12/04)
archive10 (17/12/04–11/01/05)
archive11 (11/01/05–24/7/05)
archive12 (24/7/05–12/12/05)
archive13 (12/12/05–25/4/06)
rubbish bin
AOL-using lawyer
Arbcom election
User talk:Mirv

Messages left here may not be seen for months. Use e-mail if you absolutely must contact me.

Negative campaigning, on the other hand, will be binned.

Administrator powers[edit]

If I have misused my magic powers in any way, this is the place to tell me.


Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from the list. Thanks.

If I accidentally protected a page to which I have made substantive edits, tell me here. I will unprotect it immediately.


Did I speedy-delete something that wasn't a candidate? Did I delete something for which there was no consensus to delete? Tell me here.



Did I use the admin "rollback" feature on one of your edits without warning or explanation? Then I probably thought you were vandalizing, spamming, or otherwise editing in malice, and chances are good that you were: most of my rollbacks are of such edits. If you want to know why I reverted your edit, append your question to the end of this talk page.

I was working my way from the bottom up[edit]

But if you want to take over from here, that's OK, I'll defer to your "edit in progress" notice.

The user who changed the format was following the wishes of the survey, but he wasn't careful enough to merge everything from the individual subpages back into the single page.

Please let me know if I can help out.

I will double-check your work once it appears you are done, but if you get tired, just let me know and I will jump in to complete the merge.


--DV 07:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll finish it; I had to protect it because people were editing the page and it was fast becoming unfixable. But please do check me when I'm done, which should be in under ten minutes.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Global warming alarmist[edit]

(William M. Connolley 09:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Hi: re: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Global warming alarmist: you (I think) have summarised the debate as The result of the debate was to merge and redirect the article.. I don't understand that: by my count the debate was

  • plain delete: 10
  • keep: 1
  • merge: 2
  • redirect: 4

How does that fit with the summary?

I look for an 80% majority of delete votes before deleting an article; if that isn't reached, I try to figure out which option would be most palatable to the largest number of voters. In this case it seemed that a redirect was in order, but I didn't do the merge myself. —No-One Jones (m) 17:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 17:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)) OK. I'll remember to vote delete-no-redirect next time.

Death of Jeremiah Duggan[edit]

Mirv, I'm glad to say that the dispute over Death of Jeremiah Duggan appears to be resolved, so page protection can be removed now. The parties have agreed on a compromise draft version which we'll be putting up instead of the current page. Many thanks. Slim 20:44, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


For protecting and salvaging the endorsements page. While I still think this is the wrong way to go (77 KB and counting, among other things), it's no longer worth the effort it would take me to reorganize it. It would be nice if people who complain about my "deleting" their comments wouldn't simply turn around and do exactly the same thing to others, but I guess they're all too busy pursuing their vendettas to worry about giving other people equal time. --Michael Snow 22:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. It appears we were the only two to vote on this article, and five days have passed with no resolution. I believe this is because it was improperly added into the VfD process. What should we do? -- TomPreuss 23:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since Sj has merged and redirected it, I think we can leave it at that. —No-One Jones (m) 12:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like he beat us to it. Thanks. -- TomPreuss 20:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New feature to control campaign messages[edit]

Hi Mirv,

Well, it seems that some folks are truly put upon when it comes to campaign messages, even to the point of not wanting other users to receive such messages.

I'm really not sure what to make of Administrators who are running in an election who don't want individual contributors to receive campaign related messages on their user talk pages - even if those users have explicitly requested to receive such messages.

I understand the desire not to politicize elections. But aren't voters wise enough to make their own decision to choose to receive such messages and make up their own minds?

I also respect privacy, and if users indicate they do not want campaign messages, there should be harsh sanctions for campaigners who ignore those wishes.

Please check out the proposal at Software and features, and vote to approve a new feature that allows users to control whether or not they receive campaign messages.

I'm hopeful that if users are allowed to explicitly declare their willingness to receive such messages, that others will not feel quite so offended.

If you'll support this effort, I think it will go a long ways towards increasing voter turnout in future elections.

Thanks in advance if you choose to help out.


--DV 11:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: I've been impressed by the ability of the contributors on Wikipedia to find creative solutions to difficult issues, so if you have additional, creative ideas of your own, I would like to hear from you.

Thanks for adding your comments to the proposal, Mirv!
There is a time-honored tradition of get-out-the-vote efforts, and even that much was met with a lot of hemming and hawing on the part of several Administrators when I asked if we could do more to publicize the election.
Perhaps I will make this point clearer in the proposal, but I would really like to know how many editors regularly hang out at recent changes, vs the number of editors who just edit the articles they are interested in and would otherwise be unaware that elections are even taking place.
I only became aware of the upcoming election because I saw an offhand reference to it on a user talk page. I very well could have continued editing articles and heard nothing about the election. I think many other editors are in this same boat.
My motivation is this - given the failure of the current administration to improve the editing environment, (many serious and very experienced editors have repeatedly expressed how stressful it is is to work on political or history articles), I insist that we need fresh faces with fresh ideas.
Restricting publicity about the elections to the portal and recent changes pages does not help increase voter turnout. And yet this lack of real publicity is what several administrators have said is "the way it's done around here".
Elections really need to be publicized on many, many user talk pages (in a tasteful manner, of course), to bring in those fresh new faces, or the editing environment will simply continue to stagnate with very slow improvements.
Please let me know if you have other ideas for how to improve the editing environment, but getting out the vote seems to be a critical part of it.
--DV 12:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A link in the sidebar?[edit]

Now there's a sacred cow. :)

If the powers-that-be could somehow be convinced to add a link to the side bar that appears a few weeks before upcoming elections, and leads to the main info page of the upcoming election, I would find my "get out the vote" efforts redundant (anything I could do would pale compared to a link in the sidebar), and I would also rest assured that we're getting serious about including more points of view.

Who does one have to talk to, in order to get such a change made?

--DV 14:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think any sysop can add it to either MediaWiki:Monobook.css or MediaWiki:Monobook.js, but I'm not sure. Even if it is possible, I don't know how to do it. I'm not sure where this should be brought up; on the Village Pump, I suppose. —No-One Jones (m) 14:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just saw your "binned" modification[edit]

Kind of a variation on the ol' "filed in the circular file", eh?

I like it, but I think I'll keep mine with the links.


--DV 14:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar[edit]

-->Talk:Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar

A quick note to say thanks[edit]

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks too, for same! --Woggly 20:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, I submitted an arbitration on this guy here. Let's see what happens. OneGuy 09:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arb-Com vote[edit]

"He may be a pest,'s whinging, yes, but I don't see any promises of legal action. I've unblocked him. —No-One Jones (m) 20:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

You showed good judgement in un-blocking me, and in providing your "Administrator powers" options box above; but bad judgement in your insulting me. So I don't know if I will be voting for you! And of course anyone that can read basic English and understand it could see I made no legal threats.WikiUser 21:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Merv, I saw on the blocked user list that you had blocked #12061, presumed to be user:Herschelkrustofsky until November 28. My understanding was that this user, and two others, were blocked for one week starting November 25 for promotion of Lyndon LaRouche. Was that changed to three days? Slim 08:53, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw there's an earlier block further down the list that IS for one week. So now I'm confused. The reason I was looking at the list is that another of the blocked editors user:C Colden posted today, yet was supposed to be blocked for a week, so I'm wondering in general how these blocks work. Slim 08:58, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

1. You need to stop posting libelous material about a former user no longer on the forum. He's not here to defend himself and it's completely unfair. The rest of Wikipedia has all but forgotten him, I don't know why you feel you have a need to be any different.

Because he's trying to resurrect his self-promotional article yet again. If he weren't doing that I wouldn't spare him a moment's thought; since he is. . . —No-One Jones (m) 20:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. I offer you the same challenge I offered Tagishsimon (see my talk page). You know I'm not MC, but if you think you're so hot at guessing identities, who am I? I invite you to try to figure out who I really am, because I know you won't be able to. But take your best shot anyway. 259 19:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know I'm not MC—Where do you get this idea? I strongly suspect that you are, in fact, Mike Church. —No-One Jones (m) 20:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How can you say he is trying to resurrect his alleged self-promotion if he's not involved with this medium at all? How can you know the intentions of someone you have (presumably) never met and who you haven't seen, even in virtual life, for more than 3 months? Maybe he's totally against the creation of a new Ambition article; on the other hand, maybe you're right. Maybe he wants to create an Ambition article in 2005, maybe not. Maybe he's disavowed card games entirely and is pursuing other interests. You just don't know, and you have no basis for any of your claims. (I do happen to know his position on the matter, but won't violate his confidence.) You're intellectually disingenuous, and you're attacking an absent individual for your own petty gain, to bolster your own sense of power. You've also found that the "Mike Church" accusation is an all-purpose argument for the discredition of any individual you wish. This is intellectually flimsy and wrong.

Get out of this controversy now or I will further eviscerate you with your own fallacies. 259 01:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How can you say he is trying to resurrect his alleged self-promotion if he's not involved with this medium at all?—I'm not at all convinced that you're not involved, Mike. True, the User:Mike Church account hasn't edited in over a month, but you have a well-documented record of obvious sockpuppetry.
I don't have any record of sockpuppetry. As for Mike, that is User:Isomorphic's opinion and has the support of no intelligent or respected contributors. It's possible that some of those accounts are Mike Church sock puppets, but at least four listed there have been disproven. 259 02:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, some of them have denied it, but none of them have disproven it.
How can you know. . .—because your sockpuppets are easy to spot, and your sockpuppets are discussing when they should recreate the article.
Again, I don't have any sockpuppets. It sounds like you're talking to Mike, and if you are, you should take the matter to him, not me. If you really have a problem with his past behavior on Wikipedia, then send him an email or something. Leave me out of this.
I am talking to you, Mike.
Furthermore, reread the post that was submitted to Talk:Ambition (card game) by an apparent new user:
Is this the same "Ambition" I used to play when I lived in Chicago? Or a totally different game? Why is there a discussion page if the article is gone? User:Eternal March
Three points:
  1. It is possible that he was talking about a different game; perhaps there was a local game known as "Ambition"; it's conceivable that other games use that title.
  2. He never discussed recreation of the article. I took that as his intent from the question "Why is there a discussion page if... ?" I could easily have been mistaken in that interpretation, and if I am, I'm sorry because I've caused a lot of grief by supposing he had that intent.
  3. Unless and until this User:Eternal March clarifies himself, I don't think we can fairly know what his intentions are. We might as well not presume this new user to be a sock puppet of any sort until we know more. 259 02:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We'll see.
you're attacking an absent individual for your own petty gain, to bolster your own sense of power—Now who's being intellectually disingenuous? How can you claim to know my motivations, hmm?
I have a good idea of your motivations from observing your behavior online. I claim you cannot have a similar confidence about Mike's motivations because you have not seen any of his contributions online (except maybe in other forums) for at least three months, because there's nothing to be seen, unless you know him personally. 259 02:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But I saw his behavior in the time he was here, and I know how he acts.
You've also found that the "Mike Church" accusation is an all-purpose argument for the discredition of any individual you wish.—It only works on obvious sockpuppets. If I tried to discredit any other users I didn't like, I'd be seen right through.
You are being seen right through. 259 02:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're disagreeing with me. This establishes nothing meaningful.
'Get out of this controversy now or I will further eviscerate you with your own fallacies.—because after all, you've been so good at that in the past, haven't you, Mike?
Mike was pretty terrible, actually. He got dragged into a pseudo-political controversy he just wasn't built for. Look, I know politics (worked in it for 7 1/2 years) and I know Mike Church (for about one year). This kid would never make it in the political arena. He's way too emotional; I definitely wouldn't call him thin-skinned but he's easy to upset. Politics is like being a lawyer, but you have to represent yourself, which requires staying calm and level-headed even under fire. Mr. Church would never have a chance in that regard. 259 02:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you really, really want Wikipedia to forget about you and your buffoonery, you could just archive the records, walk away, and forget about recreating the article. In the months when you were doing just that, nobody spoke a word about you or your game; the whole thing was effectively a non-issue. Deleting anything that reflects poorly on you, creating more sockpuppets, and attacking anyone who speaks a word against your actions, on the other hand, is just going to drag the whole mess up again. —No-One Jones (m) 01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
'My buffoonery? Since you seem to be intentionally conflating us, do you mean to call me, or Mike, a buffoon? Or both of us? It's fine if you think I'm a buffoon, it's fine if you think Mike's a buffoon. I'm just curious because you seem to be hilariously confused about who's who.
I'm never going to write an Ambition article. I know nothing about card games. I don't even know if Ambition's any good, other than by reputation. Mike probably never will write such an article either. But tell me, because I'm curious from an intellectual standpoint: what do you have against the inclusion of such an article? The game is clearly notable. 259 02:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
you seem to be hilariously confused about who's who—Oh no, I think I'm quite clear on this.
The game is clearly notable.—Which is why nearly all of the relevant Google results come from Wikipedia or its various mirrors and forks.
Wrong. Do you want me to substantiate this? A casino website had an article about it, it appeared on a Japanese webpage on May 1, 2004, and there was discussion of a (hypothetical) "Ambition tournament" on a message board somewhere. The game is mentioned also at I can substantiate these claims with hyperlinks if you want. Unless Mike knows fluent French, there's also a French Wikipedia article on it we can presume to be written by an author other than him. 259 03:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wow, two websites published something about it (I don't count message boards or Urbandictionary because those are easy for a skilled self-promoter like Mike to manipulate). The French article was written by someone using an IP address from Mike's college, someone who says that French is not his native language—i.e., Mike. —No-One Jones (m) 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mike probably never will write such an article either.—Good. If you want Mike Church and Ambition to be forgotten, that's exactly what he you should do. —No-One Jones (m) 03:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've basically been forced into the role as Mike's advocate, since he's sworn Wikipedia off. I don't even really like this role; I'm not getting paid to do it, and I could get $75 an hour doing this same consulting work for a politician. Do I want Mike or Ambition to be forgotten? I have no opinion on the matter. I know he doesn't want Ambition to be forgotten-- he knows he has a good game (at least in the opinions of those who've played it; I never have) and wants desperately for it to catch on-- he just doesn't want it to be vandalized either. My guess is that if he returned to Wikipedia, he would oppose an Ambition article, the risk of recurrent vandalism outweighing the positive value of an Ambition presence in WP. 259 03:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I should rephrase that: Do you, Mike, want your card game and your attempts to promote it to be forgotten on Wikipedia? If so, simply walking away from it is the best thing you can do. —No-One Jones (m) 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr on Ariel Sharon[edit]

  1. (cur) (last) 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography)
  2. (cur) (last) 06:35, 3 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Revert edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Ferkelparade. We arenot required to fallaciously "prove" a negative. You are, however, required to discuss your proposed changes on talk.)
  3. (cur) (last) 06:15, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk))
  4. (cur) (last) 12:34, 2 Dec 2004 Ferkelparade m (rv)
  5. (cur) (last) 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 (Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War)
  6. (cur) (last) 09:06, 2 Dec 2004 MPerel (HistoryBuffEr, stop replacing article with your personal version)
  7. (cur) (last) 08:59, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made)
  8. (cur) (last) 08:43, 2 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk.)
  9. (cur) (last) 08:35, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral bio is back, post objections in Talk (haven't seen any yet))

While his previous blocking appears to have been a mistake, this looks to me like 4 reverts in 24 hours, and is quite provocative given the recent RfC against Quadell. What do you think? Jayjg 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  1. 08:35, 2 Dec 2004
  2. 08:59, 2 Dec 2004
  3. 06:15, 3 Dec 2004
  4. 06:46, 3 Dec 2004

Looks to me like #3 involved significant changes (the addition of a full paragraph) and thus is not a revert. I wouldn't be comfortable blocking him for this series of edits. —No-One Jones (m) 16:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the diffs now I see there are some differences, though it's definitely designed to skirt the rules, and the paragraph he added was pretty short. As a counter argument, it is clear that he has not just added the new paragraph to the existing article, and that he has removed the existing article 4 times in 24 hours, which in my mind does constitute 4 reverts. Jayjg 16:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I blocked HistoryBuffEr for violating the 3RR rule. The #3 edit was, as I see it, a "complex revert": a revert and an update rolled into one edit. Yes, he added significant material to his preferred version, but he removed all changes made by other people in order to do it. It isn't a "simple" revert, but it's a revert nonetheless. I explained this to HistoryBuffEr on his talk page, where I let him know why I blocked him: User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons#3RR on Ariel Sharon. He will no doubt disagree. The question is, looking over the edit history, did HistoryBuffEr violate the 3RR or not? Did his behavior merit a 24-hour cooling-off period or not? I looked at the evidence and decided it did. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:57, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Quadell's assesment of the situation. I don't see why a particular edit can't be a revert and an addition at the same time. A revert is a method of nullifying the previous edit or edits, and this nullifying effect was still created by the third of HistoryBuffEr's edits. If he had reverted and then added a paragraph immediately afterwards, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and all he has done is do that in one edit rather than two. If we allowed people to escape blocks for violating the 3RR simply because they combine other edits with their reverts, it'd be absolutely impossible to enforce, because everyone would simply do what HistoryBuffEr has done. The block is perfectly justified, and I would have made it myself if Quadell hadn't. Proteus (Talk) 20:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. And the irony is that he complains about others doing this exact thing to get around the 3RR in the RfAR against him. Jayjg 21:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
HB's actions were right on the edge of unacceptable, and considering that I am alone in holding the opinion that they did not quite warrant a block, I am going to let this block stand, though I would prefer that it had not been made at all. —No-One Jones (m) 00:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quadell's Repeated Unwarranted Blocking[edit]

The following was posted on Quadell's Talk [1]:

Your Repeated Unwarranted Blocking
You have blocked HistoryBuffEr (and any IP used by HistoryBuffEr) without any justification again.
I appreciate your close attention to my posts, but this is getting ridiculous.
Despite the extensive discussion of your previous unwarranted blocking just days ago, you've made the same mistake again, only one day after the RfC closed.
I did not violate the 3RR, my posts were different.
I do not need to remind you that abusing your sysop privileges for personal disputes is a violation of rules.
Please unblock this user immediately.
HistoryBuffEr 19:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. If you insist on enforcing your own 3RR "standard" that any edit is a revert, there is plenty of work for you. Check edit history of your friends.

Mirv, please note that I did not even violate the spirit of 3RR, because my 4th post was not intentional:

  • I had updated Ariel Sharon's Early Life, posted it and went onto something else. When I looked at the screen later, WP said that I was logged off.
  • This had also happened earlier, while posting "Info and links" on Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre. After posting I was logged off, my post didn't go through and I had to repost.
  • Later, I logged back on and updated Yasser Arafat first. Then went to Ariel Sharon, and it appeared to be same as before my update. I posted my update again (with a new desc, didn't save previous one), checked the history, saw my post on top and logged off.
  • I had not paid close attention to edit history because I had 2 posts the previous day and planned only one post. Also note that I was not playing fake edit games: if I had played the Jayjg-style revert-edit-revert game, I would have edited after three posts, not after two.

Again, my (unintentional) 4th post did not violate the 3RR rule.

In the previous RfC, Wolfman advised Quadell:

  • Not to rush with blocks because harm of blocking is greater than harm of one extra revert, and
  • To ask another sysop for help in situations where he has personal involvement.

As Quadell has ignored this sound advice, he appears to be on some kind of a vendetta mission and may not be open to a rational resolution. So, this blocking should be reversed by someone else.

HistoryBuffEr 19:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to undo this block, but it seems that my view that it was not quite warranted is in the minority, so I'm going to let it stand. Look on the bright side: 24 hours isn't really all that long. —No-One Jones (m) 00:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Quadell does seem to be out of control. He has just posted in my talk [2] that he will extend the ban because my posts of objections to his blocking are "illegal":

"You are now making edits while under a temporary block, not logging in in order to circumvent the block you are under. This is in violation of the rules. If you continue to do so, your account will be blocked until 24 hours after your most recent illegal edit. Please wait until your block has expired to make any further edits. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)"

HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Update 2:

Yep, Quadell is out of control and has extended the ban to IPs used by HistoryBuffEr. I have filed a Request for Arbitration, see [3].

HistoryBuffEr 21:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help needed with a Request for Arbitration[edit]

Mirv, sorry for spamming your Talk, but I don't have many other options left.

After I filed the RFA, Quadell:

  • Blocked another HistoryBuffEr's IP
  • Went around asking others to revert HistoryBuffEr's edits (which were only objections to block and the RFA)
  • UninvitedCompany indeed reverted HistoryBuffEr's edits, including the Request for Arbitration.
  • I'll try posting the RFA again, but would appreciate it if some decent sysop could stop this flagrant abuse of sysop privs and keep the RFA alive until the ArbCom votes whether to accept or reject. Here is the copy:

removed as CheeseDreams has reinstated it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. —No-One Jones (m) 00:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abdel Qadir on Binational solution[edit]

What do you think of this case?

  1. (cur) (last) 04:56, 5 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Arabs demography is a crises only for Jews)
  2. (cur) (last) 04:50, 5 Dec 2004 Jayjg (Abdel Qadir, you have already violated the 3 Revert rule, please do not revert again)
  3. (cur) (last) 04:44, 5 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Jews groups are already killing Arabs to make Israel. Please see Talk)
  4. (cur) (last) 04:25, 5 Dec 2004 Jayjg (No Israeli group has proposed this; please see Talk:)
  5. (cur) (last) 04:23, 5 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Balance correction)
  6. (cur) (last) 00:06, 5 Dec 2004
  7. (cur) (last) 23:46, 4 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir ("One man" is spiritual leader of Israel Shas Party. Many Israelis call for "Kill the Arabs" and everyday they do.)
  8. (cur) (last) 23:20, 4 Dec 2004 (one man's dubious statements vs, wide spread statements about genocide on the Arab side does not constitute proof that the "extreme" Right seriously considers genocide.)
  9. (cur) (last) 23:05, 4 Dec 2004 (POV of Arab World territories occupied. Disputed NPOV this is a compromise)
  10. (cur) (last) 17:24, 4 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Evidence is on Discussion page "Kill the Arabs")

--Jayjg 05:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks like both Abdel Qadir and Montag are fairly new users, so neither may be aware of the three revert rule and how it's enforced. Give them both a (pleasantly-phrased) warning this time and block them if they continue. —No-One Jones (m) 05:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

libertarian revert wars[edit]

why don't we just protect those three or so articles until the wankers go to sleep? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. On the other hand Chuck F is stupidly exposing a lot of anonymizing proxies to the blocks that they deserve, so perhaps we should leave them open as bait? :) Nah, probably not. —No-One Jones (m) 07:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you protect this article again? Trey Stone continues to refuse to justify his sweeping deletion of text on talk. His latest edit summary in response to my request that he take it to talk was just "bloop." At this point I feel like I'm just being trolled, as he's probably getting a kick out of annoying me and sabotaging my work. 172 07:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okey-doke. —No-One Jones (m) 07:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

obvious bias on my part[edit]

What is this, obvious bias on your part... you ban me but not the other user, let him revert and then protect his verisons. [ probably Chuck F --mirv] 07:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, I blocked you in the first place because you reverted excessively. Why didn't you TAKE THE DAMN HINT AND STOP REVERTING?!? As for the protection, I neither knew nor cared who had reverted last; you're both equally childish in my book, and had I chosen a version to protect it would have been the last one edited by an adult, i.e. neither you nor the other guy. —No-One Jones (m) 07:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)