User talk:BorgHunter/Archive 1

This is an archive of my talk page from 2005. I don't keep any sort of eye on this page, so if you want to get in touch, try my talk page. Thank you! —BorgHunter

Archives: Greeting | 2005 | Jan–Feb 2006 | Mar–Apr 2006 | May 2006 | May 2006–Nov 2015

Freestylefrappe RFA

Thanks for your support. freestylefrappe 02:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Borghunter,

I received your message about the article "Bouncing back" that I posted. However, it shouldn't be a copyright violation, as I'm the same person who wrote the Amazon review -- I wanted to create a page for Bouncing Back but didn't have time to write another piece all over again, so I simply posted my own review of it on Wikipedia. (I credited myself for it too, so it wouldn't look like I just stole a random person's review.) How do you take the copyright stuff away and put the original article back? If it's a problem leaving the article as is, I'm happy to change it to a more encyclopedic-style piece.

thanks, Shane Stein

Please follow the instructions on the copyright notice, specifically: "If you hold the copyright to this material, or if you have permission to use this material under the terms of our license, please indicate so on this page's talk page and under the article's listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems." But yes, the entry is definitely less than encyclopedic as it stands, and it could stand to be NPOVed a bit. But thanks for your contributions! Regardless of the copyright mess that's there now, they're appreciated. --BorgHunter (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming message

Thanks for the welcoming message on my talk page, I'll be sure to check as much as I can about the rules and all of this stuff as I spend some more time here. Optimager 15:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Airespace

Well, when going through dozens of CSDs, with more being added by the second, it's hard to give too much attention to any of them, if your goal is to actually process all that are listed, so, no, I didn't check the talk page. It was a borderline case, certainly, but a really bad article. If you or anyone else wants to write a half decent stub on it, it shouldn't be speedied. -R. fiend 06:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kohan

Well I wasn't actually bold, I was just curious what would happen, since I knew something would, so here the reasons why to use Kohan instead:

• Article names should not include undertitles, since they are usually not used when you talk about the games. In this case it could help to differ between the meanings of Kohan, but it would be inconsistent and Kohan (computer game) is also a choice.
• It is a series, Kohan: Ahriman's Gift is actually an Add-On to Kohan, but can be played without it (just like Serious Sam TFE and TSE) and there is a real successor, Kohan II.

The second is the reason why I would propose Kohan for the article page instead of the disambig page. The Kohan series doesn't warrant several articles for the two (or three) titles (and likely the series will continue). Listing all the titles in the disambig page is not a solution, either we leave Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns as is and link to it in the series article Kohan (computer game) or change the disambig to the series page and put a "if you were searching for the priest, see Kohen" on top. The latter is what I would prefer because the game series is more important in my eyes than an almost never used singular of Kohanim. Actually as I understood it, Kohan is plain wrong and Kohen is the correct singular of Kohanim.

Also, I don't see what's wrong with moving the content if you state where it came from (as I did). The history is not lost, everyone who wants to look at it can just go to Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns. I don't like putting this up for WP:RM, but I will at least copy the content back from Kohan to Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns because your revert "deleted" the changes I made to it. -- Darklock 10:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, your proposal does sound good to me. I'll go ahead and list it on WP:RM.

Also, you do need to use the move function when moving a page. See here. It's difficult to keep track of histories otherwise. --BorgHunter (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Pharmacology

I'm sorry, your right I've been acting like and arse but i'm just a little frustrated. I've been been spending alot of time working on several pharm pages which I will be adding once they are unto scratch and the last thing I need is people for people to merge articles on me. This is no excuse however for my behaviour, please accept my applogies. Bartimaeus 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:06

Hillary Clinton

Why did you remove the information on ghostwriters on the Hillary article? —preceding unsigned comment by 24.87.210.3 (talk • contribs)

You firstly provided no sources, and secondly the wording of your claim is derogatory and further inconsistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. As others have suggested, if you want to add the information, "Controversies" would be a good location. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How is it derogatory to mention the fact that Clinton uses ghostwriters and then, breaking with tradition, refuses to credit them? --SpinyNorman 17:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't merely "mentioned." If you look at the diff, the word "wrote" was replaced with "put her name on." That's inherently POV. The proper place to mention the ghostwriters controversy is, indeed, under "Controversies." —BorgHunter (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an accurate description of what she did - she put her name on a book that was written by someone else. Whether it was ghostwritten in whole or in part is beside the point. Clinton didn't write it. She isn't an author and the original article section described her inaccurately as a "prolific author". She isn't an author, prolific or otherwise. She is a famous politician who sells books because of who she is, not how she writes. There's nothing wrong with that and she certainly isn't the only one to do it, but it is noteworthy and it certainly isn't derogatory to point it out - along with her break from custom with regard to crediting ghostwriters. It isn't controversial, it is simply an observation of factual events. --SpinyNorman 21:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What book are you talking about? What you edited referred to a newspaper column. And, incidentally, whether this is proper or no, no matter who actually wrote a work, proper English says that whoever's name on the cover is the author, and, ergo, "wrote" that work. Thus, it is proper to call the book "hers," no matter who actually wrote it. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about all her books. To the best of my knowledge, she hasn't yet written one of her own. Again, that isn't unusual for politicians, but what is unusual is that she doesn't credit her ghostwriters properly. You can say that 'Living History' is "her book" in the sense that he is credited to her on the cover, but you can't accurately say that she actually wrote it or that she is a "prolific author". --SpinyNorman 06:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I still would like some sort of explanation on the discrepancy between book and column. Just because her books were ghostwritten does not necessarily indicate that her column was. —BorgHunter (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable to assume that she uses a ghostwriter for one and not for the other. In the absense of concrete evidence that she wrote her columns herself without any help from ghosts, it would be unreasonable to assume that she did. --SpinyNorman 17:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, what's unreasonable is assuming something without evidence. Until you provide a source that says her column is ghostwritten, the article should say she wrote it. Innocent until proven guilty. You need a source for those accusations, especially considering this is an encyclopedia which should maintain a NPOV. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to apologize for starting the controversy yesterday, reverting 'vandalism' on the Hillary article. I did that by mistake: I thought I was undoing changes by IP user 137.113.48.2. Sorry for causing any difficulties. --Marcusscotus1 06:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope

No, if they block the IP and its the same as yours then you will be blocked as collateral damage. Best thing I can say is, find out who it is and have them kicked out of study hall. :/ --Syrthiss 14:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

We already know who it is, and there's no way our teacher will do anything about it except give the entire class detentions. 'but he's vandalizing the wikipedia' = 'you guys weren't working?' --SirMaur 18:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Meh. Well the advice I have at the moment is if you find yourself blocked with an IP block is to request an unblock or wait until you get home. I think the admins would unblock the ip for a registered user there, and could reblock when you were done. The problem is the folks doing the vandalism are pretty prolific (if I remember this mornings fun correctly) so that's potentially a ton of work for those of us on RC patrol if they notice they are unblocked.

FWIW the block this morning was only 15 minutes, and I didn't see any continued vandalism after that...tho I also didn't check if BorgHunter made any edits after the block wore off either. --Syrthiss 23:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

also reverted a change to BorgHunter's userpage by anon. I don't know if that was one of you not logged in or not, but considering his babel is Libertarian and LGBT friendly I suspect Rush Limbaugh isn't one of his favorite people. ;) --Syrthiss 14:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My failed RFA :)

Dear BorgHunter,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your support. I appreciate it and won't forget it now that the support votes seem fewer and further between, unfortunately. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Gator1 (talk • contribs)

Jiminy Crow! I just voted! That was quick. In any case, you're welcome, and I hope you do make it—though, yeah, it doesn't look too good right now. Drop me a line if you're ever nominated again in the future (assuming, of course, this one fails)—I'd be glad to vote for you again. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nostradamus

Borg, thank you for your help with the Nostradamus article. That page is a damn mess. I'm obviously on the skeptical side, but I think that both sides are crossing NPOV (although not to an equal degree). I've been kind of trying to think like a lawyer in how I've handled the situation. I've been trying to edit as little as possible, proposing solutions (reserving the Nostradamus page for biography and splitting the debate into a separate page a la validity of astrology, let me know what you think), and thinking about how what I say would look in the context of mediation or arbitration.

As an expert on Nostradamus, I don't think that the "quality" of the page article is anywhere near balanced. The page is a mess - with references to Jews as "Swine" and the obvious POV. Also, I would appreciate it if those with knowledge of astrology have their revisions added - rather than by those claiming POV of others, while clearly blind to their own POV. Being a skeptic is good - that's where I started, but being clearly POV and biased is not. And that is certainly not NPOV.Theo 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm new here and you seem experienced and involved, so I wanted your opinion as to the best strategy for handling this dispute and disputes in general. Thanks and Happy Holidays.--Tar Heel 04:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. And I think you're doing a great job trying to head off a bad edit war at the pass, which is what I've been after as well. I'm not sure I'd support a split—but it's an idea. I think all users right now have agreed to quit editing the page and discuss the issue for a bit, which is a step in the right direction. I might go so far as to say that Theodore is in grave danger of violating WP:POINT (or has already) if he continues with his edits the way he has, but at least he's not doing so at the moment. BorgQueen (another Borg!) has him up on the 3RR reporting page for a WP:3RR violation on another article, so an admin may step in and tell him to cool his jets. He violated it on the Nostradamus article too, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed good WP:FAITH and mere ignorance of the policy, and didn't report him. We'll see how the situation turns out.

It's also too early to be looking at arbitration, as that is a last resort only. A RfC or RfM is a distinct possibility if we can't work it out, but I think it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia if we steered away from engaging too many people on the issue. I can forsee a nasty edit war culminating in protection of the page, and I don't want that. If we can work it out without a Rf*, then that'd be the ideal solution.

Good work so far, Mr. Heel. See you around. (P.S. Could you create a user page for yourself, please? Redlinks are a pet peeve of mine.) —BorgHunter (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Model M Keyboard

As a newly created admin, I have fulfilled your (rather old) request at the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen and merged the histories of both pages to Model M Keyboard, since it is unambiguous even without "IBM" preceding. IBM Model M Keyboard remains as a redirect with a single-edit history. Alert me if you find more cases like this. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:24, Dec. 17, 2005

Bah, if I pass my RfA, that was going to be the first thing I'd have done. But thanks for actually doing it. There's a serious backlog over there. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Headline text

Borghunter - appreciate you first asking if mistakes are made rather than accusing newbies of vandalism. That would be proper considering the role of fighting vandalism you've taken upon yourself. Would appreciate you checking things out first by being honest in your "investigations" and stop leaving rude, accusary messages on Talk Pages. Thanks. Theo 12:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for your welcome and info, BorgHunter! --PL 16:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Orlando (disambiguation) award

St. Pete? Close enough. I hereby award you the duty of keeping Orlando disambiguated. It is completely clean at the moment (except for some user/talk/project page links, and some intentional links. Your job is to check here every few days and fix any new links that are made to this disambiguation page (it usually picks up 2-3 a day, and every once in a while one of those is a nonsense article to be speedied or AfD'd). Cheers! BD2412 T 03:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Award! Yay! I have an award! Waitaminute...this award seems suspiciously like work. Hmmmmmm. >_> —BorgHunter (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, now that I'm an admin, I no longer seem to have time to keep up the 15 disambig pages I adopted, so I'm passing them on to those who I trust to handle them! BD2412 T 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congrats! Your request for adminship passed with 23 supports to 6 opposes, which is equal to a 79.3% support to oppose ratio. This was a close RfA, but but after considering all arguments, I have promoted you to administrator, which means you now have access to several neat administrative, cleanup and upkeep tools at your disposal.

As a new administrator, you should read relevant policies and pages linked to the administrators' reading list before you carry out tasks such as blocking users, deleting and protecting pages, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Remember that most of what you will be doing will be easily reverted by other admins, apart from page moves and image deletion. I personally suggest reading the administrators' how-to guide in order to learn some of the ropes. If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask me for help. Welcome to adminship! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex! And, incidentally, congrats on your recent promotion to bureaucrat. I would have voted, but it was such a landslide I didn't quite see the point. I shall try to use my admin powers responsibly...::accidentally blocks user Linuxbeak with expiry time of indefinite::...ack! —BorgHunter (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you'll get the hang of that... congrats!!! BD2412 T 04:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida

I noticed from Category:Wikipedians in Florida that you are a floridian and I have created a state wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida. So far is it very small but it could be expanded later. Join it if you want and help make it grow, set tasks etc. And also congrats in your RFA. Thanks. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you. I humbly accept the nomination. --BorgQueen 06:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! I nearly nominated you sooner, but I thought it in better taste to wait until my own RfA was over before starting any new ones. Good luck! —BorgHunter (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology

Okay, I apologize for creation of Template:Example. I wanted to find out what happens if a page includes itself. - Mike Rosoft 17:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all! In the future, however, it'd be best to use the sandbox for any test edits you want to make. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

==User:67.161.198.239==

Blocked You have been blocked for a period of one hour due to extensive spamming of external links in Wikipedia articles. Once your block has expired, please feel free to return and make constructive edits to Wikipedia. Thank you! —BorgHunter (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this spammer, I just rolled back all of their linkspam. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 19:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was probably too lenient on the block; he'll probably be back right after his block expires. Oh well, live and learn. All part of a day's work, ma'am. ::tips hat:: —BorgHunter (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Movement

What do you think of the movement? Reply here. Thanks. --Kin Khan 03:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But I don't think of it. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Will you nominate me for admin? I read your standards, and I fit them. I would make a good adminastrator because I am a good contributer to Wikipedia and enjoy cracking down on vandals and reverting/nominating for deletion vandalism.--Anti-Anonymex2^{Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco!} 18:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there,

I've been looking through your contribs, and no, I shan't nominate you for adminship. You can always nominate yourself, if you wish. The reasons I have for declining to nominate you are:

• Low use of edit summaries. You should always use edit summaries. No exceptions.
• These diffs [1] [2] [3] demonstrate a lack of some knowledge of Wikipedia, especially what the User: space is. This diff [4] indicates a temper which would not especially suit an admin.
• Lack of edits in the Talk: space.

I'd be happy to offer any advice you want, however. If you're looking to become an admin, I'd advise that it's generally impossible without 2–3 months of good, solid editing with at least 1000 edits. My own RfA barely passed, and I had about 1000 edits worth of activity when I put it in. Your working on AfD is a good step in the direction of adminship. RC patrol is something else you could try doing (if you aren't already, that is).

If you have any more questions, be sure to let me know. See you around the 'pedia, and Merry Christmas! —BorgHunter (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR block on User:Mistress Selina Kyle

I just went to look at her talk page and noticed your block. I had a look at the evidence and its pretty conclusive. Good job! I think that she can get a little hot headed sometimes. For what its worth, I think that she was right, but she went about it the wrong way. Should go through talk pages and such, and put in little dispute stickers rather than just revert a lot of the time. Anyway, hopefully she'll learn after having 24 hours to think it over. Good job. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Where's the 3rr block template you are using? I like it. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:BorgHunter/3RR, and I use User:BorgHunter/Blocked for all other blocks. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

W.marsh's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (30/2/0). I will do my best at the position I now am in. Thanks again! --W.marsh 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's RfA

Hi BorgHunter,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:GMB's block

G'day BorgHunter,

there's more detail now in the thread at AN/I. I have never indef blocked an apparently GF user before, so I welcome any review. Re: second chances, any second thoughts I had were immediately quelled by GMB's response to the block; some of it is documented on his own talkpage, and he has sent me two emails, one of which is quoted in AN/I. The other email was much calmer, but he did describe it as "dishonourable" to be blocked for "in part" "pointing out an act of holocaust denial". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hey, many thanks for fixing the cut and pastes for the FBLA-PBL article. Very much appreciated by myself and a few others who were looking for the change to be carried out.--Metros232 14:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

UMC logo

Thanks for the "heads up"...I've changed the image to a "generic" Wesley image. Happy new year...KHM03 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for your nomination and support in my request for adminship. I was promoted with a final tally of 31/1/1. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there is anything I can assist with. --BorgQueen 21:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mlbretired

I like the idea of the template but want to make sure I am using it properly. I've added it to the Rico Petrocelli page. If you get a chance can you check it out and let me know if I have applyed it correctly ? I'd like to start adding this template to other retired players pages. Thanks. No Guru 23:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Glad I'm not the only one throwing that one around. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar

It's appreciated. But. I need to leave RfP for awhile. Just tired of being told about all of these biases I supposedly have. I don't think we emphasize AGF nearly enough around here. Anyway. Thank you! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, everyone has biases. We are human, after all. However, one would have to be blind and deaf to claim that you're acting on those biases when protecting a really heated edit warfield, like the one that caused you to quit. You did a great job around RfP. I don't think enough people realized that, and of course, all the edit warriors thought you were just some evil commie/neo-con or whatever (depending on their biases)...but some of us do notice the hard work that you put in there. And everywhere on Wikipedia, really. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. *blush* I think I am going to concentrate on wikifying and vandal patrol for awhile. I get into the least amount of trouble that way. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII

We just wrote more or less the same conclusion about the 3RR violation at the same time on RJII's talk page. How amusing—and good thing we didn't disagree! ;-) -- SCZenz 05:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we do disagree partially. I'm not sure the page protection is a good idea. Better to have RJII cool down and let other editors than the ones who have been warring express their views with their edits. -- SCZenz 05:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's all we're asking for, that the other editors on the page can actually edit it. I moved the page to a new title, and instead of working with me to undo it, RJII c&p'd it (a no-no) back into the old title, creating a fork. You've endorsed his doing that, and protected both versions, allowing him to keep his fork. I just don't think that is the right outcome when editors ask for another editor who has breached the 3RR so egregiously to be censured. We don't need the page protected. It is supported by a consensus. James James 06:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic fascism

Sorry, what exactly are you warning me for?

I moved a page with consensus on the talk page. Another editor reverted the move by cut and pasting it to try to circumvent the need for admin intervention, which he knew would not support him. He forgot to C&P the talkpage so it's still on the right title.

I and another editor have both reverted RJII within policy. What on earth are you warning me for? Are you suggesting that I should simply have carried on reverting and just not bothered you with the other guy's trashing the policy.

The article is a mess because RJII c&p'd it back to the old title.

Please unprotect the article and block the user as requested. He has reverted many times more than three, and been warned and asked to stop. By protecting his version and warning another editor who has stayed strictly within the bounds of the policy, you have endorsed his action. I'm really disappointed.James James 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the template. "Protection is not an endorsement of this page version." You didn't violate the 3RR, but you stepped close to it. You were also involved in an edit war, which is A Bad Thing. Please discuss changes on the talk page, and we can talk about unprotection when a consensus is reached. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't talk down to me. I'm well aware of what the template says. It's an endorsement of his action, not his version, because his version is only the most recent because he breached 3RR and I would not. James James 05:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR case (RJII)

I'd like to ask for some more input on the 3RR case with RJII. If you look at the talk page for the article economic fascism, you'll find a clear consensus that the article should either be rewritten to reflect the actual usage of the term "economic fascism" or the article should be renamed so that its contents are accurately reflected by its title. James James performed the rename and RJII reverted at least six times in the past 24 hours. There is clear consensus for the move, and literally nobody agrees with RJII's position, but he continues to revert.

I'm not sure what protecting the article and asking for further discussion will do. The issue has been discussed extensively, a RfC was made, a consensus emerged, and RJII has fought it every step of the way and will continue to do so. He is currently using past comments by an admin as a shield, because early in the dispute User:Firebug was redirecting the article to corporatism with no merge. Those comments are no longer relevant - this is a move with consensus, not a redirect without merge.

Thanks for your time. TomTheHand 05:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, a RfC isn't necessarily binding. The issue obviously isn't entirely resolved. I think a request for arbitration would be appropriate, unfortunately. It's a shame every time such a step has to be taken, but sometimes it's necessary. 3RR blocks are only for 24 hours max anyway. If such a step is taken, please notify me, incidentally. If you and your side decline to take a RfAr, all I can do is really block for 3RRs and not much else. Again, I strongly urge a RfAr to settle the matter once and for all. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't gone anywhere near breaking the policy, nor would I. I don't know why you are warning me for doing three reverts. I'm perfectly entitled to.

I'm really upset that you have decided to support a user who has trashed the policy. What's the point for editors like me of abiding by the policy and trying to work with consensus for NPOV articles when an admin rewards an editor who has taken ownership of a page, reverts it NINE times and refuses to take note of consensus? If you actually read the discussion page, you'd see that I and several other editors have tried to discuss the page with RJII, but he shouts down all other opinions. There is a clear consensus for a move to a different name and I acted on that. I'm astonished that not only have you supported him in reverting many more than three times but that you protected the page on one of the reverts that breached the policy. In effect, as I say, you've rewarded him for doing it. I know what the box says but please, use your common sense. You clearly endorse his action by not reverting him before protecting the page because his version is the most recent because he breached 3RR and I would not!

The message you've given him is that it's perfectly okay to do that. Please block RJII as requested and unprotect the page so that other editors can work on it. James James 05:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no you are not entitled to three reverts. Read WP:3RR.

As I've said above, I think a WP:RfAr is the step you should take. I strongly suggest that step, if (as I've heard) a RfC has already been undertaken and such. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is already a RfAr involving RJII here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug which is partly related to an edit war in the economic fascism article immediately prior to the RfC. Should I try to piggyback on to that one or start a new one? TomTheHand 06:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read 3RR. I know what it says about entitlements. I was talking generally, meaning rather that I'm entitled not to be blocked (or warned) for reverting if I haven't breached it. Please stop talking down to me. It's really irritating. I rarely get involved in reverting signed-in editors but his botched move made a real mess. I fixed it and he reverted that, so clearly, I didn't want it to stand.

Good eye. I'd add to that RfAr, as it seems relevant. The arbitrators probably will issue some sort of decision on this particular dispute as well. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

He just needs to be blocked so that the mess he's made of the versions can be sorted out. It also needs the article to be unprotected to do that. The 3RR policy also mentions that some admins will not protect to the version that has been created by the excessive reverter. The arbcom doesn't need to rule on his reverting. It's perfectly okay just to block him for that. I won't be adding anything to the arbcom case. I don't think he needs broader censure. He just needs a reminder that other editors are allowed to edit articles he works on. James James 06:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please block RJII for the NINE reversions and unprotect the article. If he doesn't get the message about his behaviour after 24 hours, then we can think about further action. But please enforce the policy now, so that the other editors on this page can work on it. James James 06:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to block RJII for the 3RR. It's admin discretion whether to block or not. Moreover, another admin came to the same conclusion I did. And also, because TomTheHand pointed out that a RfAr involving RJII is already in progress, I think that blocking him would be inappropriate. As such, unprotecting the article is not feasible. Sorry. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

He can't be blocked because he has an arbcom case!!? You are kidding, right? James James 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to note that RJII is continuing the edit war by creating a duplicate talk page. TomTheHand 06:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Woohookitty's talkpage

copied: I'm sorry to have complicated things. I'm going to cool down a bit ;-) I'm sure BorgHunter has done his/her best in absolute good faith, but you're supposed to take sides over 3RR! And it's probably not great to protect an article and its POV fork! It's all sortable though, so like I say, I'm going to cool down and not say anything else.James James 06:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, I know you're doing your best. I hope you don't think I am just having a go at you. Bit heated, I know, but it's really frustrating when you ask for help and don't get it. I've just been trying to fix a mess. I've been working on RC patrol this week, fixing messes, and you sort of rely on admins to back you up when you stick to the policy. James James 06:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for being so understanding with me. I understand your side, and I agree, you've followed policy pretty well. Perhaps in my attempts to be as impartial as possible I've inadvertantly skewed towards the side of the "guilty" party, a more or less de facto devil's advocate. I don't know. If I get some notes from admins saying they think it's best to unprotect the pages, I will. Yours is not an unreasonable request; I just don't know if it's for the best.

Lord, trying to do the right thing is tiresome. I was supposed to go to bed an hour ago! I'm going to need a double dose of coffee in the morning. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do go to bed. Let someone else handle it. Next time though, just block the editor who breaks 3RR. People expect it. It's an electric fence, remember? If you don't, then editors start thinking why bother? If you look through the page, you'll see that serial reverters just get blocked, unless there's a really good reason not to block them. James James 06:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm just an old school, WP:AGF, dyed-in-the-wool softie. I hate blocking people who aren't inserting "PENISPENISPENIS" into articles. Fat lot of good that view gets me; I just protect articles without thinking things through properly and inadvertantly harming the people who are actually doing positive things. Oh well; I'm a new admin, I suppose I'll get better with age, eh? —BorgHunter (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you did just fine. I would've kept both pages protected and let them haggle it out, but I understand why you unprotected them. My 2 rules of protection are...never take sides and emphasize to the parties that by protecting a page, we are never taking sides. We aren't ruling one side "correct", which is why I think you were justified in protecting the fork and the main article. That way, you were not picking one version over the other. The other thing is that make sure you make the combatants realize that they might not see a dispute, but if just one person doesn't go with the consensus, then they need to try to discuss the situation with that person and try to get them to come to an agreement that everyone is ok with. That isn't something you really did, but you'll learn how to do that. "I don't see a dispute!" Well of course they don't, because they think their side is 100% right. Overall, you did just fine. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

::grin:: Thanks, Cat, for the advice and the encouragement. It's greatly appreciated. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And not being critical of James James here, but just because someone violates 3RR doesn't mean that their arguments are invalid or that they don't have a point. Again, you did the right thing. Next time, I'd keep the pages protected and let them work it out. And if you don't like blocking people, I'd suggest just putting it up on 3RR or AN/I and let others do it. That's true with any admin task. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't suggest his arguments were invalid because he reverted the article nine times. I simply suggested he should be blocked for it. His arguments are invalid because there is a consensus to fix the article. Did you read the talkpage? I'm guessing you absolutely did not because you would not say that if you had. If you had done so, you'd see a great deal of discussion with RJII, from many quarters. That you would protect a POV fork of an article without reading it, and without reading the discussion, is quite astonishing.

Next time I try to fix a mess that someone creates by c&p moving a page and then reverting NINE times to keep the mess from being fixed, I hope the pair of you will unblock me when I break the policy. What's the point of a 3RR page if admins just won't take action?James James 06:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To get the attention of admins, of course. Which it certainly did. Posting on the AN/3RR isn't a mandate for action; it only alerts admins to the situation, to which they act in a manner they believe to be appropriate. And RJII certainly has a number of pairs of eyes on him, including mine. If he reverts the 3RR elsewhere, and I get to him first, I won't be so lenient with him. I would have blocked him on the spot, in fact, had I known about his history of this (which I did not, my fault). All in all, it's a pretty ugly situation. And I'm going to bed. ::tired grin:: Good night, James*2, it's been an...interesting night. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Userpage

I hope you don't mind - I've stolen some of the ideas of your Userpage for mine. Especially the "Label Me" thing on the side. Is that a template or did you do it yourself? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 21:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The Label Me is just a modified Babel template. But go ahead, steal away! This is a wiki, after all. Good ideas are good ideas, and I never have bad ones. ;) —BorgHunter (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow.. so modest! At least somebody's around who knows something about Wiki Markup. Thanks. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII

Thanks for taking action against RJII. Would you be willing to do the page move? What's needed is for the page history attached to Fascist political economy to be attached to Economics of fascism and then for the whole shebang to be reverted to the last version before RJII moved it. I'm not an admin, so I don't know how to do that. I am ultra keen that RJII's work is not lost (even if it's not used) and that he is given the open door for collaboration, but I don't think he should receive reward for this kind of behaviour. James James 05:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm your man. I'll get right on it. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Didn't require any special admin-powers since the bloody guy moved the latter to the former anyway. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman

Thanks for fixing the Steve Hoffman entry. I saw your comments on the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection page. Unfortunately talking to these people will not get them to stop. They are former members of Steve Hoffman's forum that were kicked off for not following forum rules. They've even gone as far as creating their own forum to mock every post and every user at Steve's forum. They've stated on their forum that they plan to change Steve's entry every time we change it back. If you look under the page history, 3 different Wikipedia mods have already fixed the page only to have them vandalize it again. Please either lock the page or delete it out right.

Thanks!

Zloch1Zloch1

Deletion of inappropriate userbox templates

I'm enforcing existing policy. I don't need TfD to enforce the existing Wikipedia:User page policy, or to enforce rules against incivility or against the inappropriate use of non-free images. The only place where I'm even remotely stepping outside of existing policy is in deleting the political and religious templates, a position which is drawn from comments made by Jimbo. Holding a debate on whether we should enforce existing policy is a waste of time. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:UP is guideline, not policy. You are deleting these out-of-process. Non-free images can be removed from the template without damaging anything, and if there is incivil language in a userbox, it can be removed. There is no policy that supports this widescale deletion. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification

I've endorsed the RfC regarding Ms. Martin's actions. Thank you for letting me know of its existence. – Seancdaug 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've endorsed the RfC and added my own opinions. Tell me if you need anything. As she is a veteran admin with lots of friends, I feel we may have bitten off more than we can chew. But I will stand by my position. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I would hope that most editors can be objective with things, even with friends. And I feel that Kelly has acted in a manner ill-befitting a person of her standing on Wikipedia. But thanks for your additions to the RfC. They're appreciated. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

user:cryptic who says on his userpage "all user boxes except babel are silly" keeps deleting the headers about the RfC from Wikipedia:Userboxes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes and bans anyone that puts them back or comments about his vandalism

He is abusing his admin instablocking people who disagree with him and deleting messages from talk pages:

[5]

[6]

[7]

history of related pages:

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

you might want to bring that up in the RfC. i wont since he blocked my account (saveus) unfairly. --204.157.37.100 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII

Note that this user, as soon as his block expired, began to make changes back to the version he was reverting to. I've asked him to collaborate and to bring major changes to talk, but to no avail. His response is to call me "disruptive" and refuse to discuss his edits. James James 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Note the James is deleting my edits without stated reasons. RJII 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave reasons on the talkpage. I have invited RJII to discuss his edits there. He thinks this is "disrupting" Wikipedia. James James 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)