This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Administrator abuse on Wikipedia. Thank you. AniMate 03:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, you might get attention in the future because your signature is large, i.e. it intrudes on the line above it. I don't have the skills to help offer shrinkage of that so if you need help, placing Template:Helpme on your page would get the help you need. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 05:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just made it smaller. We'll see how this works. Minor4th • talk 05:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Even smaller. Minor4th • talk 05:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks great. Thanks for the quick response. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 05:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You bet. Thanks for the heads up. Minor4th • talk 05:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Minor4th, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! (Also, no user should be brought to AN/I without an official welcome mat.) Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 05:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again.  :) Minor4th • talk 06:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if your statement here referred to my removal here. If it did, let me warn you not to reintroduce this content, which is defamatory and obviously false. And no, in the case of BLP violations, the defense of "but some source wrote it!" won't help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You were warned. For reinstating these defamatory claims, you are now blocked for 48 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You make my point better than I can. I have no idea what you removed or didn't remove, but I know that this source was removed from the article and someone said it was defamatory, although it is a reliable secondary source and there was no source provided refuting or countering this information. Solomon, Lawrence (December 19, 2009). "Wikipedia's Climate Doctor". Financial Post. Retrieved June 26, 2010.. So you blocked me over a content dispute? I see. Ironic dont you think? Please tell me how I can appeal this block to someone other than the very admin involved in the content dispute. Thank you. Minor4th • talk 07:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

See above -- I was blocked by an admin over a content dispute without a warning. I don't see the normal template for blocked users on here and I'd like to know how I can appeal this block to an admin other than the one who is having the dispute with me. Thanks to anyone who can respond. Minor4th • talk 07:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for persistently violating WP:BLP. You may use the {{ unblock}} template, as the system message has certainly informed you already. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You should also read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. AniMate 07:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove my {{helpme}} tag again as I am seeking assistance from an uninvolved admin about your behavior. There has been no system message warning me of anything. Thank you. Minor4th • talk 07:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The link AniMate gave you tells you exactly how to appeal a block...what exact template to put here, etc. At this point, that's the only issue you can raise--whether you should be blocked--so that's the only help you need. DMacks ( talk) 07:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed the post from AniMate and thought I was just responding to the admin who blocked me over a content dispute. I'll go read it. Minor4th • talk 07:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just an apology for assuming you must have seen the automatic notice (something like MediaWiki:Blockedtext). I was under the impression it was automatically shown the moment you were blocked, but apparently you get it only when you attempt to edit a page other than your own talk. But then again, the standard {{ blocked}} blurb template wouldn't have given you that information about the {{ unblock}} process either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I'd also like you to read WP:BATTLEGROUND. You and Greg really seem to have taken this situation with Sarah personally and have dragged it into article space. I'd also recommend reading WP:BLP. Editors on Wikipedia are real people, and things posted on here about them can have real consequences. Durova's real world identity is known by many people, and Connolley uses his real name. AniMate 08:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Sarah. That's absurd. What's also absurd is Sunshine's use of admin tools to squelch debate and discussion over content. I'm sorry if Connelly's feelings are hurt over mainstream media reporting about his abuse of admin tools, but that's his problem and is not a reason to block me for including the information in an article that mentions him. The information also ought to be added to his article page to balance it as well. I don't know who Durova is or what you're talking about. My edit had to do with Connelly, whose name is still in the article. If you're suggesting that negative information about a living person cannot be included in any wiki article, despite being reliably sourced, because the living person also happens to be a wiki editor -- then there's a policy that I was unfamiliar with. Minor4th • talk 09:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Minor4th ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked me with the stated reason "disruptive editing: repeated BLP violations on Administrator abuse on Wikipedia). The only edit I made that had anything to do with a BLP was this: [1]. That cannot be called repeated by anyone's definition, and I fail to see how that violates the BLP policy in any event.
BLP policy says this:"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed." My edit contained the exact information from the source and presented it in a factual manner with a quote from the article. The source for the information was an article written in Financial Post by Lawrence Solomon who is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and is considered notable in his own right as evidenced by the wiki article about him. The information that is being referred to as "repeated BLP violations" was attributed to a reliable, published source using inline citation. There is no grounds for blocking me for "repeated BLP violations."
I note that the admin in question has been restricted in their use of admin tools in the past for apparently making blocks that are driven by bias or POV, and after privileges were reinstated, Jimbo Wales expressed further concern. See here: [2]. I think this may be a similar situation because the article in question Administrator abuse on Wikipedia is about administrators, and it stands to reason that the blocking admin may be too close to the subject matter and has used her admin tools to squelch opposition, as she apparently has done in the past. I have never been blocked. I have never been threatened with a block. I am meticulous in my few content edits to make sure that info I add is meticulously sourced. In this case, I was not the one who added the material in the first place -- but I noted that the blocking admin removed the reference as well as the information from the article with an edit summary: remove obvious defamatory falsehood. BLP enforcement. I added the information and the reference back to the article and I had no idea that the person who made that edit and summary were an admin. I guess i should have treated them differently than I would any other editor because one certainly doesn't expect to be blocked for 48 hours for adding information and references to an article. There is no rationale or explanation for her comment that the information is "obvious defamatory falsehood" because it was sourced by reliable, verifiable published material. In fact, I thought it must have been a mistake to have deleted the reference from the list because that is something that is not done without discussion and consensus on the talk page typically. In this particular instance, the article was immediately taken to AN/I and without any discussion one admin speedy deleted it on grounds that don't exist (improper redirect or something). He then had to revert it and acknowledged that the deletion was done without the support of policy. Within minutes an AfD was started and vigorous debate ensued, and I'm sure it continues without opposition now that I am blocked. Even if I had violated the BLP policy, which I did not, it is heavy handed to immediately block me after one edit and without even giving me a warning. The blocking admin says that she gave me a warning, but if you look at my talk page and my edits, you'll see that the only "warning" I received was only 6 minutes before I made the edit that she doesn't like: see her comment here: [3] and my edit here: [4]. First of all, the "warning" was probably made at the same time I was in the process of making the edit she doesn't like, and second of all that is not a warning! Nowhere does it say that I'll be clocked because I'm disruptively editing, and nowhere does it say that I have violated BLP -- it only references a comment I made on the AfD that references were being removed and telling me not to add the information back to the article after she took it out. I really can't even believe i have to justify myself over this. I think this IS administrator abuse very much akin to the actions complained of in the article. This is an improper way to control the content of an article and related AfD because the blocking admin either is uncomfortable with the subject matter or believes that she has some kind of superiority over regular editors in terms of content. It is an improper use of admin tools which this admin has been sanctioned for in the past. I understand that administrators may not like the content of this article and may wish that it was not on Wikipedia, but I feel strongly that this block was improper and there is no policy supporting it. At the risk of being blocked further for speaking against an admin, I believe this block was carried out to win a content war and to silence me in the AfD. I ask that the block be lifted immediately.

Decline reason:

[5] [6] & [7] are all diffs of you adding BLP violations to this article, two of which were edit warring and the other was substantially similar material you had previously edit warred to include. The final diff was 6 minutes after Fut perf left you formal warning to not insert BLP warnings into articles. That looks like a warning to me and your unblock seems to blame everyone except yourself and fails to register that your own conduct may have been suboptimal. I have no confidence that you will not reinsert the blp vios if unblocked and the block must therefore stand. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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

Of course I would reinsert the material if unblocked because it's not a violation of BLP in the first place and it wasn't "repeated" and two of your diffs are repeats of each other and are a revert of an improper redirect. I also note that the editor with whom you say i was edit warring with is not blocked. This is a content dispute over content that is disliked by admins. Period. You probably ought to outright ban me now because it's unlikely that I will shut up, and if y'all are going to keep ignoring Wiki policy to win a content dispute, then a ban is inevitable anyway. Minor4th • talk 15:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Fine - blocked indef as you wished, good luck with your endeavours away from wikipedia. . Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• ~Oh and if you change your mind and agree to discuss any controversial edits we can consider an unblock as indefinite in this case means "until you get it" not forever. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean I have to agree that an improper block was proper? I tried to discuss my "controversial edits" and I'm happy to continue discussing them which is why I said it's not likely that I'll shut up. But it would be great to have an admin who was not actually engaged in a dispute with me review this rather than the admin who was edit warring with me (your term) and another admin who was involved in an RfC with me. So what was it you wanted to discuss about the "controversial edits"? Minor4th • talk 16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, you just need to agree to discuss the edits you were blocked with on the article talk page and get a consensus before it is reinserted - and obviously not reinsert it if there is no consensus for it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree not to insert it if there is no consensus. That is reasonable, and I think that should have been the way to proceed initially instead of blocking me. I did not see the blocking admin's warning when I made the edit in the first place. I didn't even see the comment on my talk page until after I was blocked. Minor4th • talk 17:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Good luck harassing non-admins on wikipedia. Minor4th • talk 16:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the reliable and verifiable source that I included for the information that I was blocked over, I find further support in another reliable and verifiable source:

For all its protocol, Wikipedia’s bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily favor truth. In March, 2005, William Connolley, a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge, was briefly a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming, to which he had contributed. After a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect, the case went into arbitration. “User William M. Connolley strongly pushes his POV with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own,” his accuser charged in a written deposition. “His views on climate science are singular and narrow.” A decision from the arbitration committee was three months in coming, after which Connolley was placed on a humiliating one-revert-a-day parole. The punishment was later revoked, and Connolley is now an admin, with two thousand pages on his watchlist—a feature that enables users to compile a list of entries and to be notified when changes are made to them. He says that Wikipedia’s entry on global warming may be the best page on the subject anywhere on the Web. Nevertheless, Wales admits that in this case the system failed. It can still seem as though the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact

And this [8] <--- not that it belongs in a Wiki article, but it belies the blocking admin's statement that my reliably sourced edit was "obvious defamatory falsehood." Minor4th • talk 09:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there is nothing there backing up Solomon's mistaken claims. (By the way, do you understand why they are wrong?). Your source was verifiable but not a reliable source for this particular article. WP:RS is more finely tuned that you and some others at times think it is, and in any case our BLP policy means that for such edits you have to have better sources than one global warming skeptic. I'm surprised you still don't understand this. Dougweller ( talk) 11:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why they were wrong, no. In any event, it's a content dispute and it was the admin who disputed it who blocked me. I think that's improper. This whole thing is distasteful the way it is being handled and if anyone could step back and look at it without all the emotion, it would indeed look like an attempt to silence editors over content. Especially the actions taken against Greg. Minor4th • talk 16:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 12:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The text of the notice is below. I would try another unblock request based on the refs below.

Minor4th ( talk) was inappropriately blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk). There were no user warnings issued. The matter deals with another admin who has been discussed at length in news sources, and his efforts to control global warming discussions and push his WP:POV. The initial reference was from a major newspaper but was deemed by Future Perfect as a non-reliable source. Original source was Solomon, Lawrence (December 19, 2009). "Wikipedia's Climate Doctor". Financial Post. Retrieved June 26, 2010..

Additional sources that support the material in the article, but that was not included at the time, is:

• Schiff, Stacy (July 31, 2006). "Know It All:Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?". The New Yorker. Retrieved June 27, 2010..
• Ball, Tim (Ph.D) (January 1, 2010). "Control of Climate Policies by Unaccountable Bureaucracies; The Canadian Example". Canada Free Press. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
• Ball, Tim (Ph.D) (February 8, 2010). "IPCC And CRU Are The Same Corrupt Organization". Canada Free Press. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
• Brown, Mick (October 28, 2006). "Wiki's World". Telegraph. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
• Brown, Mick (October 28, 2006). "Wiki's World". Telegraph. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
• Giles, Jim (2005). "Internet encyclopedias go head to head". Nature. 438: 900–901. doi: 10.1038/438900a. {{ cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored ( help)
• Giles, Jim (2006). "Wikipedia Rival calls in the Experts". Nature. 443: 493. doi: 10.1038/438900a. {{ cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored ( help)

There are additional articles by Solomon, carried by CBS, etc., but I have not listed those. There is clearly support for the material, and the block appears to be just an effort to silence criticism of a Wikipedia admin. GregJackP Boomer! 12:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GregJackP. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please post this to SPI:

Reading the SPI and checkuser results, I have this to say: My mobile edits are from an iphone and other edits are from a Mac laptop and iMac using a clearwire connection. Those should be different data results than anything from GregJackP. Greg and I know each other and live in the same metropolitan area. I have helped him with some articles and research and he has helped me with some technical aspects on wiki, but neither of us controls the other's edits or anything close to that. I don't really care if you block me because Wiki is just a diversion from my real work and I don't edit that much anyway. I would hate to see Greg blocked or banned over this, however, because he has made some valuable contributions and will go on to be a productive editor.

On Jimbo's talk page I disclosed that I had created another account a week or so prior to creating Minor4th but abandoned that account because of real life privacy concerns. Off-wiki, some people had connected the account with my real life identity. I request that the account not be disclosed publicly because there are some scary individuals involved in the subject area and they know my real identity associated with the abandoned account.

I think this whole deal is unfortunate and I honestly think there is a bit of a hive mentality at work here, and like I said I don't really mind if I am banished for saying that but Greg and I should not be treated as one and the same. I may provide some diffs in a bit to show more evidence that GregJackP and I cannot possibly be editing from the same location and cannot possibly be sockpuppets. Minor4th • talk 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)  Done

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

additional comment: The checkuser requested that a whole range of IP's be checked and noted that dozens of accounts had been created and not used. I do not believe the admin was saying that those accounts had been created by me or by GregJackP, although that is apparently the way that people are construing it on the SPI discussion. I have not created dozens of unused accounts and I can't imagine that Greg has either. I think the comment should be clarified before there is assumption that either of us has created dozens of accounts for nefarious purposes. Minor4th • talk 17:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I see the SPI case is getting more complex than I expected, and you obviously have a legitimate interest in participating there. Obviously, I'd have no problems with unblocking you for that purpose, if you promise to stay away from contentious edits in the disputed article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please unblock for that purpose and I will not edit the disputed article for the rest of the 48 hours but would like to possibly participate in the AfD . Minor4th • talk 18:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec, when I wrote that I hadn't actually seen your exchange with Spartaz that led to him changing the block to indef. In light of that, I'm afraid I'll need a promise to stay away from those edits not just for those 48hrs, but beyond that. (Otherwise I'd be effectively overturning Spartaz' block.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any interest in editing the article at all. I won't edit it, period. Minor4th • talk 18:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, unblocked on this understanding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I unblocked then? Minor4th • talk 18:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are [9]. Please check if you can edit normally – there might still be WP:Autoblocks around, although I did clear away the last one I found. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can edit normally. Minor4th • talk 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

FPAS - Can I edit on the talk page? I will mind my manners :) Minor4th • talk 22:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment posted. Robert Skyhawk ^{( T C B)} 18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As a helper I have also become interested in this discussion. I fully concur as a resolution this user, and the other, should contribute directly to their own prose. This is a serious allegation. My interest, and intention, is to insure a contributors reputation is not besmirched without demonstrating genuinely disruptive, clearly verifiable, and/or factual admissions. If there is any measure of good faith left to assume. I prefer to maintain that assumption. I also intend to comment on the SPI at that location as well. My76Strat ( talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for your assumption of good faith and for your comment. Minor4th • talk 18:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't formed an opinion on the investigation, I Support an unblock to allow participation of the accused parties. Robert Skyhawk ^{( T C B)} 18:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Movementarian's talk page. Movementarian ( Talk) 04:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have asked Stephan Schulz [10] to answer your question about this. He is very knowledgable about this and I think he can give you an answer to your questions better than I can. I did recommend you taking a look at the history and talk page of the article William Connolley. The answers are there too. The editors of Global warming can also answer you. I'm not active there so I would like to defer to one of them. I just kind of picked Stephan out of hat type thing. You still can go to the WC article and find the answers easily. it wouldn't take too much time either. Anyways, I wanted to let you know that you are not being ignored about this. HTH, -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your attention to this. I did look at the talk page of the article, as you suggested, but did not find an adequate answer to the question I was asking exactly. I'll see what Stephan says. Thanks again. Minor4th • talk 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Did you check the archives? If not that's where the discussions should be unless they were deleted due to BLP issues. A short response to this is this, if you look at what Solomon wrote your will see that it's impossible that WMC edits were all about Global warming esp. the blocks and/or bans. When WMC was an administrator he dealt with the 3rr/edit warring board which is where most of these blocks/bans occurred. This is just an example of what Solomon was wrong about. Stephan can give a better response than I can. You can also ask Boris or Hipocrite. There are a lot of editors who can explain this to you. -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Solomon's artcle did not claim that all of those actions were done as a part of global warming articles. I am sure Connolley had to deal with a great deal of hostility and I would not claim that all of his actions were unjustified. However, I did note that he has been sanctioned a number of times for misuse of tools, incivility, and other POV-related actions. By the way, I have no opinion about whether Connolley or Solomon is correct on the substantive issues and have no political or social reason to hold anything against Connolley or to prefer Solomon. My question was really just a legal question about the advisability of accusing a national magazine writer of having defamed Connolley and what the evidence was to support that statement. More than anything, it is an issue of liability to Wikipedia, and that was the nature of my inquiry. Minor4th • talk 18:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well this was discussed a lot and it was decided that Solomon was not aware of how Wikipedia works plus other things. If I remember correctly, this was also discussed at the alerts board and other boards but off the top of my head I don't remember where else. Stephan hasn't signed on last I looked but he'll be able to give better details. I have only lurked about the Global warming case so I really don't know a lot. Global warming is under sanction patrol and a special board was set up for it which is what I watch plus the ocassional AN/i complaint. I also have a few of the editors on my watchlist. But that being said, I don't go to any of the Global warming articles. There is also an arbom case that recently opened too. Sorry I can't be of more help. -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 19:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been very helpful, and I appreciate it. It's really not my issue. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of whoever is in charge of that kind of thing, and since I've done that it can be dealt with however they see fit. Minor4th • talk 19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem and I do understand your concerns. I would say trust me it's been handled but that sounds strange for this site. Glad I could help a little at least. -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that while I won't hide the fact that I think your recent edits have been ill-advised at best, I am confident that you can recover from this incident and you haven't lost my respect after the recent Don Martin stuff and especially the comments left by GregJackP and yourself when I quit wikipedia for a while. I'm sorry if I seemed to be taking a very hard stance in the recent discussions but I really think you need to take a break, calm down, look at your recent edits, and consider if they're something you should be proud of. I'm relieved to see that you have essentially passed the SPI, and I hope there are no hard feelings. Thanks, GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comment. I don't disagree with your take on the way I've handled things lately and appreciate your input. No hard feelings whatsoever. Peace. Minor4th • talk 19:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm Mifter in case you don't know me, and I just wanted to stop by to offer my services both as an editor and as an admin, in the event that you ever need an unbiased admin to step in an a dispute or to just help out (wither if be with another admin or another editor, or even a collaboration on an article), I just wanted to stop by and make myself available (There are plenty of great people who are admins here, don't let one bad experience with an admin ruin your idea of the rest of us and if you ever feel that you are being abused by an admin, feel free to come and leave a note on my talk page or that of another uninvolved admin, and we'd be happy to do our best to help out ;) ). Best, Mifter ( talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mifter :) I am very pleased that you stopped by, and I sure appreciate your comment. That actually means quite a lot. I was just poking around your user page as a matter of fact and noticed that you are a member of project law enforcement and have an interest in the law -- something we have in common. I look forward to seeing you around and hopefully collaborating. Minor4th • talk 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What I fear has happened is that this person has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Wikipedia. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, if the abusive, slanderous, vulgar, obscene jerk is barely notable. Minor4th • talk 15:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just dropped by to say hello, and introduce my new "fresh start" sig. See that you and GregjackP have been through some tough times lately. Regards, Dmartinaus • Talk 02:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Good that you're free again to stretch your legs. Your new fresh start sig looks great. Yeah, about Greg and me ... that kind of stuff seems commonplace and we didn't exactly help matters too much. It's calmed down now and all's well. Please send me a note any time if you want to say hi or have questions or anything like that. Minor4th • talk 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI re 19Nightmares again..... See his conspiracy comments re you and me and GregJackP at the bottom of my talk page User talk:Dmartinaus Dmartinaus • Talk 03:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I did see that he left a rather long diatribe on your talk page but I didn't read it. I did not see that he had mentioned me. I would have thought that he could let that go by now. Poor chap. Minor4th • talk 04:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

:Minor, do you know of any instances where he has reverted my edits? I have suspected so but am not good at finding those things. I certainly understand where you feel you have to leave and walk away. He's all over me personally, however, so I need to do something. I'm just not sure what to do. Dmartinaus • Talk 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor - I truly do not know what to do. To shut up and take it, or to point out the absurdity and absolutely inaccurate things he says. Sigh! It's hard to be accused of so many things and not even speak up. But that would only bring the wrath and comdenation of other editors. What is one to do????? Dmartinaus • Talk 03:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

D -- I know you are in a bad position. My best advice is this: you are not going to make any head way with him, period. You will never convince him of anything, so there is no point in even acknowledging the things he says. I do not think anyone else even reads it anyway because anyone who knows NN knows he has it out for you and he's even gotten a bit off his rocker with the conspiracy babble. No one pays attention to it, so I wouldnt worry about what other editors think. When you roll around in the dirt with him, it confuses the issues and makes you look bad too. So I would say ignore him, as difficult as that is. He will burn out if he is not getting attention for his behavior, and he'll move on to something else. The exception to his is if he is disrupting your edits on articles. The way to handle this I think is first of all be scrupulous in your edits so that he has no room for making a valid argument about COI or non-notability. If that is the way you are editing, then if he reverts one of your edits unfairly or changes the wording to make it sound negative when it shouldnt be, then revert him back ...once... and without commentary other than a neutral edit summary like (reverted unexplained removal of sourced information). Do not get into an edit war with him. If he reverts again, take a deep breath and don't go ballistic -- think about whether he has a valid point at all, and if not take it to the talk page and if necessary make a request for comment from other editors. At all times remain dispassionate or you will end up giving legitimacy to his accusations. Consider walking away from the edit for a couple of days even though you feel like you need to resolve it immediately. It is not that pressing. Ask other editors who are working on the articles to take a look and give an opinion but try to avoid engaging with him directly. And Don, although it can get personal, please do not get into this mode of thinking you have to counter every single thing he says. Consider responding simply with a "Please stop" if you feel you have to respond at all. There is no easy solution, but don't confuse the issue by acting badly too -- let his actions speak for themselves. Minor4th • talk 04:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Dmartinaus • Talk 06:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th - Sarah indef blocked 19N. It might be nice if several of us greatfully thanked her for it on the AFI page. Just a thought. Austex • Talk 14:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit is not vandalism. Do not label edits that are not vandalism as vandalism. If this continues, I will seek to have you prevented from doing so in the future. Thank you. Hipocrite ( talk) 03:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Seek whatever you wish. Minor4th • talk 03:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Minor4th. Hipocrite ( talk) 03:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

When I get around to it, I will read it. I'm in the middle of something at the moment. Minor4th • talk 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For my own edification: STOATblog [11], Vigilant [12], AnonymousByChoice [13], TheNeutralityDoctor [14], SafelyAnonymous [15], GoRight [16] Minor4th • talk 04:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[17] -- 218.201.21.181 ( talk) 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Minor4th • talk 21:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. Never meant to turn you into collateral damage. -- 204.11.245.202 ( talk) 01:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Arbcom has info from me on file from me that will clear me from suspicion on this. Minor4th • talk 02:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Minor4th. I reworked the lead just a bit, as well as the Misuse of terminology section, and commented why on the talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Open_proxies. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On a note unrelated to the above, [18]. Please use it carefully and wisely. I'm off for a wikibreak. Toddst1 ( talk) 14:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Minor4th • talk 01:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea I prot'd the Watson article on Greg's request? no, I did it on my own. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were responding to his request for full page protection [19] Minor4th • talk 15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge and I compiled relevant diffs into a sortable table to make it easier for reviewers. The information is contained here

I am notifying those who made reference to the incident on the evidence page, specifically, SBHB, Minor4th, GregJackP, and Hipocrite. Did I miss anyone? -- SPhilbrick T 18:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mark nutley also mentioned it in his evidence. Minor4th • talk 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you notify MN, you might as well notify WMC. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if WMC mentioned it in his evidence or not -- I had just read that MN included a section in his evidence about the incident. Notify them both if there's any doubt. It looks good, by the way. Minor4th • talk 18:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sort of done - just noticed that the sort by time doesn't work because it is covers multiple days - I know how to fix it, but it will take some time. User:Sphilbrick/Lawrence Solomon article dispute of July 8-10 (I'm concentrating on the conversion, not the content, so please let me know if I blew it on content, e.g. on the other one I realized I accidentally truncated some material - I haven't checked for that here.)-- SPhilbrick T 02:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! I will go take a look now. I did not follow that discussion closely, so I'm not as familiar with it as I was on the Watson edit war, but I will certainly look it over and try to compare it against the edit history and let you know if I find anything that needs tweaking. Minor4th • talk 02:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm done for now - again, it could use some proofing, but I've taken care of my OS issues, will check again in the AM-- SPhilbrick T 03:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear - per my discussion with AQFK, I'm doing nothing with this, beyond its creation.-- SPhilbrick T 17:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw your discussion -- I just edited the table quite a bit, to highlight the edit war. Request input. If AQFK does not want to post it, I will. I am trying to find the exemption stated by Rlevse. Minor4th • talk 17:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

{{ adminhelp}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): IPBE granted. That should allow you to edit while I confer with a CU. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Request handled by: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Hi. I poked a fellow with a mop. Chill ;) Jack Merridew 20:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I"m chilled :) Minor4th • talk 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

and you're WP:IPBLOCKEXEMPT. See also: meatball:DefendEachOther. Also, your sig needs work; I'll get back to you on that ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And feel free to work your magic on my sig. I will leave it to your discretion and in your capable hands. Minor4th • talk 21:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

After conferring with a checkuser, I'm told I shouldn't have granted you IPBE (nothing to do with you, just fiddly stuff I know nothing about). I'm not going to revoke it since it seems to be the only thing allowing you to edit, but if at all possible, I need you to stay on the same IP or range so that the CUs can track down the autoblock that's giving you trouble and lift it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm editing from a different IP range right now -- I'm on my desktop computer and not opera mini. Do you need me to sign back in on my phone so I can edit from the opera mini IP? Minor4th • talk 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just stay on whatever range you're on now. I'm told it's an autoblock. If that's the case, then every IP you log in from will be autoblocked, so stay where you are. A CU I trust is working on getting it sorted. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read your email. Minor4th • talk 22:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm sure this will all sort out; Opera Mini is 'different' in that everything goes though Norway (although they may have a few new servers about the world). Relax, everyone breath normally ;)

Cheers, Jack Merridew aka david 23:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

test ...  :) Minor 4th 23:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, to me ;) teh font will be a tad jaggy on crappy machines. This is ok. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Testing unblock settings ... Minor 4th 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just to let you know, the Opera mini range issue has now been sorted, so I have removed the IPBE. Risker ( talk) 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for letting me know. Minor 4th 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've updated the sig at:

• User:Minor4th/sig

with:

• <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">[[User:Minor4th|<b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b>]][[User talk:Minor4th|<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b>]]</span></b>

which displays as:

• Minor 4th

WP:SIG calls for sigs to be 255 characters or less, and I had trouble with this (above is 251), so I made the '4th' be the talk link (it doesn't link, above, because this *is* your talk page; this is normal, and it works when used elsewhere). I'm thinking your user preferences are set to have :

• {{subst:User:Minor4th/sig}}

in there, which means I've changed what you're signing with as of a few minutes ago. It would be better to simply paste the above code directly into your prefs and be sure the 'Treat the above as wiki markup' check box is on. I tried a few other variations, but this seems the best option that maintains the general feel of the sig you've been using. There are, of course, other options and I'll help as I can if you want to go in another direction. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha -- thanks for the help. I did not know it was not policy compliant. You are the first to point that out to me. I thought you just didn't like the way it looked :) and I'm not so attached to it that I wouldnt change. Correct I was using subst , so I'll paste the code as you suggest. I'm open to whatever suggestions you have -- I am directionless ;) Minor 4th 01:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of custom sigs, but this was not in anyway over the top. My primary concern was that there was improper coding in there. I crafted a replacement that is properly coded but it was too large, so I crafted a more concise one. And, ya, we can work on moar ;) Jack Merridew 06:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Testing again ... Minor 4th 08:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)