User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 19

CC-BY-NC 2.0

Any idea if this version of CC is ok for uploading? Image is here. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not OK, except as fair use, which is basically never. See commons:Commons:Licensing/Justifications for information on why it's not OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had not come across that version of CC before. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --lTopGunl (ping) 14:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Athens Landsat

Hi!

About File:Athens Landsat.jpg

I know I had taken it from a NASA page, but that was back in 2004, and I'm trying to find the original source URL.

Anyway I found a similar looking pic at http://www.ldcm.nasa.gov/images/archive/c0024.html

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any general idea where you got the image? The reason we require the sourcing is that sometimes images on NASA's website aren't in fact created by NASA; sometimes they're by the ESA, for example. Are you confident it came from the Landsat project (http://www.ldcm.nasa.gov/)? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Aura spacecraft.png

I have added the source information to the Commons copy. I assume that means the en:Wikipedia copy now meets CSD F8 and will be deleted, so I don't need to source that as well?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 10:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Deleted as F8. Correct. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Heya; the "article feedback" category is for things that relate to the Article Feedback Tool, particularly the new version, not just issues with articles. Thanks! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I knew I was gonna get something wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about it; it's a brand-new category, and I pretty much expected to misunderstand the purpose (we really should come up with a more unique title...). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Darkness shines

I've reported Darkness Shines for his continued hounding editwar at a range of articles including deletion of citations from the already resolved Taliban article at AN3 [4]. Whether actioning your self or not, you might want to add comments there. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK; my eyes just glossed over trying to read that. Can you, like, summarize? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the pages are protected (except Taliban which needs attention now, you'll know as you read through) but I'll still summarize it and the wiki wide incidents since JCAla is implying a lot of things wrong in a post below and the issue needs a context:

• User:Buddy431 blanked the same content as Ashok (who was blocked by you for obvious canvassing blanking and getting a speedy deletion of a good page tricking Fastily by adding a db-hoax tag to it) at Separatist movements of India - I only reverted him once and then went to talk page to contest and I told him I didn't really cared about the content but plain blanking (another Indian User:AshLin previously also agreed on this by reverting an SPA User:Hynaboy). Darkness Shines entered the talk page right in with minor personal attacks of which he was told at ANI to refrain from and Buddy431 was a bit uncivil already on my objection only with a single revert that was mainly based on Ashok and things mentioned above.

• Some time later Ashlin added a citation needed tag to a sentence at Anti-Pakistan sentiment and I added a reliable citation there with in minutes of that. Darkness Shines came in and added verification failed tags to it (while I had properly reviewed the citations previously). I reverted him and told him that in the edit summary. He continued to revert so I left it there and went to talk page where he asked for the quotation which I provided. Then he started to troll on it (please see for yourself) while the quotation exactly said what I pointed out. Then Ashlin reverted Darkness Shines calling my citation exactly what was being mentioned - Darkness Shines made another revert adding a dispute tag to the article.

• He then removed a reference from the dispute on Taliban even when it did cite Pakistan's claim though mentioning other claims against it (but it was there to prove that Pakistan denied which it proved even with the author being against it). After two reverts he debated uselessly over it at talk even when it was decided before.

• Further escalating - a previous page which I got protected at RFPP Inter-Services Intelligence for a dispute between me, Darkness Shines, JCAla (who was 'invited' to 'advise' on his talk page) and Ambelland - Darkness Shines started to add duplicate information and other contentious content which I had my self added previously to the proper sections on his insistence.

So I reported him for all the attempts to draw me into editwars (noting that JCAla had left him a message to turn on his email - which he might have turned on n now off) and the page got flooded... Buddy431 just came in to that report to add comment against me for a single revert. Also I'm being implied to be 'wrong' for having disputes? There's nothing wrong with having many disputes, but it is wrong when many people are attempting to draw you into editwars, escalating, asking each other for 'advise' who would then come and revert. There's also an IP which commented on your talk page which is very clearly trolling, it flooded the AN3 report. It was blocked for editwar on the 71 war article with 4-5 editors and is editwarring again now (check if it needs a block).

And just now JCAla and Darkness Shines have edited Taliban article weaseling around the same content which had no consensus on talk... They've also called in a WP:POINT RFC for it after not getting a consensus at talk page, NPOVN and DRN. This is getting funny now. I don't want to revert them and get blamed for editwarring but this has to be seen through. Darkness Shines is also using the source of my signature on his talk page which implies the discussion took page on his talk page or I signed there... I refactored it to plane text which he has reverted. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Magog, excuse my editing your page, I know you requested that I do not. However, you have but one option here, take the glaze from your eyes and read the full AN3 report, diffs and all. Either do your job as an administrator or do not bother to comment on my actions. I will not deign to comment on what TG has written here, it is incorrect. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Auburn high school sources

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at Lissoy's talk page.
Message added Lissoy (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Multiple file versions

Could you check whether File:Ives quarter tone fundamental chord arp.mid has more file versions than the ones currently shown? If so, those versions might need to be copied over to Commons. The history of the file information page suggests that there are files from 2009, but the upload history only shows files from 2010. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You know they really don't have to be, actually; the uploading user deleted them (as erroneous), which is a valid deletion under WP:CSD#G7. But my bot can transfer deleted versions, but only when it's running on my local machine (it would be dangerous to let average users do this). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your conditions on Talk:Taliban

Are your conditions for content discussions on talk pages valid or not? Give me the answer by your reaction to the below recent comments. Thank you.

• TopGun: "WP:CC doesn't apply here in any way since the same editors are not hearing."
• TP: "I feel that JCAla has misrepresented many of the sources by neglecting the timeline of events and what support was provided."

JCAla (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• An administrator makes a "no attack" clause solely because User:A is too incompetent to have serious discussion without strict rules and can't figure out how to act like a gentleman and discuss without attacking other users;
• User:A attacks other users anyway, gets blocked for it, but is of course incapable of seeing fault in himself.
• The result of User:A's action is an explosion of vitriol and personal attacks; pandora's box has been opened.
• User:A cherry picks an adversary's diffs to find where said adversary was breaking the clause that was created solely because User:A shows incompetence as mentioned above. User:A reports said adversary despite the fact that people he's collaborating with are 50 times as guilty as said adversary.
• As mentioned above, User:A is too proud or incompetent to see any of his own faults, so he sees no irony in this situation.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to enforce a rule that is no longer enforceable due to the fact that you personally broke the thing into a thousand pieces. Not to mention, it was another attempt by you to hound people you don't like off the page (you completely ignored the many faults Darkness Shines, who is 50 times as guilty). Absolutely not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Then I ask you to stay away from taking any administrative action related to me. There are plenty of other administrators who can do this if I would ever show the behavior you described above. Unless you are the one hounding because of your missing competence and perceive yourself as indispensable, you should agree to this. JCAla (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think JCAla is the one who called you to help and he told us that you are most neutral admin he knows. Now that action has been taken against him and the change of statement - everything speaks for itself even when unsaid. That is all I'll say to the allegations made against me. His thread at ANI to remove you from administrating any issues involving me or him was closed as an "unfounded claim". --lTopGunl (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

JCAla: this is not how it works. When an administrator steps into a dispute, and notices who is acting poorly and who isn't, and then calls someone on it, that administrator is not involved. If there are any other admins, even one, who will take action on this, go ahead and find this admins. Good luck with that. Didn't I tell you I know what I'm doing and you should listen to me not fight me?

TopGun: please stay out of this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrators have already taken actions on this before you were even aware of the situation. Several administrators have already noticed who was acting poorly and who was not. Have fun. JCAla (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Frazier Peak directional sign.jpg

So you decided to remove this? It is very difficult to assume good faith in this incident. How can I get it back into the article? Sincerely, still your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the note I've placed on your page, regarding having the copyright holder (who doesn't appear to be you) sending permission to our email address. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

About

A happy new year to you.

I am trying to explain to you my point of view as best as possible, and hope you try to understand it.

• As you might have noticed I never used personal attacks in disputes and I simply expect this from everyone else, especially from people which have special responsibilities through the rights they have been granted. It doesn't take a lot to offend someone sitting securely in front of a PC. If I had said to you, "you don't realize it (many people lack the capability of seeing through the things whether due to culture, upbringing, education or genetics... for many, it's an unfortunate side-effect of being human)", would you have considered it a personal attack? I think it is a very sophisticated personal attack. Calling someone a "dimwit" or whatever is just ridiculous compared to the sentence above. There are parts in the world, where I do not advise anyone to say that face to face to other people. People may perceive this differently depending on their culture.

• In the moment I perceive you as making an unbalanced use of your administrative rights. Among the reasons:

1) Although I might have forgotten about complaining to you instead of the edit warring notice board (and I truly forgot that part of the agreement, I prominently remembered the part about not turning a talk page discussion into discussions about another editor's pov, agenda or motivations) I did have a valid complaint and the editor I reported was indeed involved in six edit wars (which I was definitely not). The dispute I had with TopGun was a non-dispute. The names of the two regions of Pakistani Kashmir are gilgitbaltistan.gov.pk and ajk.gov.pk according to the government of Pakistan. Replacing the regions' name or the internationally used term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" with "Azad Kashmir" (Free Kashmir) is politically motivated vandalism. And there is every right to revert that. Would you revert if someone put "One Nation under God" or "America the Beautiful" as the header of the USA lead? Would you discuss that? Normally, administrators will take the time to look at both editors. I think you looked at only one.

2) The same goes for your actions against User:Ashok4himself. You were referring to "Indian nationalists" in relation to User:Ashok4himself who never was blocked before, who mainly so far concentrated on the issue of railway sytems and cuisine. Ashok (and I have no relation to him other than the two sentences we shared on my talk page) never used Indian nationalist words. But when he came into contact with a certain editor, he ran into an dispute which had two editors involved. You blocked one and even championed the other for discovering "lousy editors".

3) I perceive you as glossing over what so many different unrelated editors are writing. User:Buddy431 certainly has not been an involved editor in this conflict so far. But he says the same as I do. Also, Darkness Shines was part of the Taliban talk. A certain editor reported him (same what I did with regards to certain editor) and even called you to support him without taking all the measures you told me to take before reporting someone. How can you perceive the same thing as disruptive done by one editor and ignore it when done by the other?

4) There are other reasons, but I don't think listing them all here will make any difference.

• What I did at ANI was a comment and complaint directed at you for what you wrote at that very topic. If I had wanted to make a sophisticated complaint about you to others, I would have listed all my reasons and arguments with references.

• I have given you many reasons and provided many arguments to you in our previous discussion. So I see no use in repeating or expanding on it. I think you have been put on the wrong track by my unfortunate dispute with TP (the only dispute I had with an editor other than TopGun recently). But I want you to consider one thing in the future: Who is the conditio sine qua non in this series of disputes? And who is the single one editor who is involved in all these disputes? Is it me? Is it User:AshLin? Is it User:DBigXray? Is it User:Buddy431? User:The Last Angry Man? Is it User:Ashok4himself? Who is it?

• If you see not one single point in any what I wrote, I would ask you to let any dispute which includes me be handled by any other administrator. If you do see a point, I would ask you to carefully consider the positions of all the involved editors in the future. Can you agree to this?

JCAla (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope the above discussion now again started by TopGun will not keep you from truly considering the discussion between the two of us. JCAla (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start. I guess I'll tackle this head-on:

1) You haven't engaged in personal attacks. No need to defend yourself on that. Your behavioral problems are in mostly megalomaniacal POV (see below).

2) I wouldn't know Kashmir from Waziristan from Bombay. And no, it's not a clear-cut issue; the fact that you think it is is a master case of megalomaniacal point of view. If he's showing too much POV, then edit within the confines of WP:DR and you'll find it will get removed soon enough. But if you keep edit warring you'll get banned from the article, and then your point of view will never come across. Have some patience.

3) Who cares if Ashok4himself was never blocked before? He was acting like an ass now, so I blocked him. No one else was nearly as bad as he was, save for an pro-Pakistani IP who I blocked for even longer.

4) I don't care what Buddy431 has to say. Argue things on their own merits, not on what someone said.

5) TopGun is the link. And TopGun is probably editing from an overly strong Pakistani-POV which should be fixed. But here's the problem: TopGun is being civil, not hounding anyone's contributions (à la Darkshines), not engaging in meatpuppetry behind closed doors (that I know of), and his edit warring is no worse than anyone else. The people engaging against him, however, are pursuing a heavy-handed attempt to get his POV utterly pushed off every page on the project, by means of revert warring, personal attacks (i.e., making editing an unpleasant experience for him), and by reports to noticeboards which are perfect cases of WP:BOOMERANG.

I'm warning you right now: you're coming closer and closer to getting yourself a topic ban. You say you're willing to negotiate, but any time someone disagrees with you, you edit war and just reinsert the material under the guise that no sane person could agree with his edits, and then go elsewhere and have the chutzpah to complain about the user engaging in edit warring. That's not acceptable. So, I'm saying, stop. Now. Pay attention to what I'm saying. I'm for you, not against you. Start negotiating, start sucking up your pride and accepting that the article will not appear 100% the way you'd like it, or you will be banned from it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Anytime someone disagrees with me, I edit war? I disagreed with many editors over the years and did edit war only with Lagoo sab and TopGun because I guess I expect them to abide by a certain norm and use/understanding of reliable sources. Anyways. I am paying attention. And I think what EdJohnston wrote on ANI is very good news. Chutzpah, huh?! JCAla (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about: [5]. DS saw something in TG's suggestion that was never there. He was unquestionably projecting; it wasn't even close. And yet you're incapable of seeing any fault in someone from your own side, and the very fact that I do means I'm being unreasonable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the fact that you do not see and act on any fault of the other editor, means you are being unreasonable. I am fine with someone seeing "my fault" as long as he sees the fault of the other editor as well - which other administrators did do. But again, chutzpah. JCAla (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

May I make you aware of this and this without comment?! JCAla (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll make a comment, looks like a sock to me. Might be worth getting a checkuser on it.--v/r - TP 04:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I already blocked said likely sock. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File disappeared from face book page

This deleted file is also available on other name but actualy this( "File:File Hayat 1. jpg.jpg) one has been disappeared from the face book viewers page, how can the other one should be appeared,--Ali Baba (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The file is now available here: File:Hayatullah Khan Durrani.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As you

Seem to know a great deal about socks, might I direct you to this [6] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I made my account back in October our paranoid darkness freind here seems to think I am either ip 86 or 68 who both edit war on pakistani indian based articles which began recently looking at the history of those articles in question such as that Indians in Afghanistan and others such as karakorum highway I started on British Indian articles as I am interesting in NRI aka non resident Indians since I am one myself Suppositries (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Suppositries is almost certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet account. But as I stated above, it's not 100% sure (assuming good faith), it's not provable (checkuser won't give information on IPs IIRC), and it doesn't matter anyway because the disputes are not a vote or a numbers game. But yes, this account + all the IP editors on the page strike me as very likely off-wiki coordination somewhere. @Suppositries: that's not necessarily an indictment of you: it's just my reading of the situation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why cant you proove it ? I am sure your experienced and I respect your initial judgements hit me back if you get proof Suppositries (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How did you come across this article Suppositries? I would appreciate if you tell me the truth - I will not block you for it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I came first to the British Indian article then I searched Indians abroad elsewhere and up came Afghanistan which I never saw before which I do think has a place on wikipedia the user darkness shine seems to be engaged in some bitter edit wars presumably with the ip that haunts him/her I havent been using my account for a while due to January examinations for my mpharm course Suppositries (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides If I wan an adamant pov pusher sock account I reckon I would be far more involved than the regular user anyways do what you see fit as I am not bound wikipedia I will not die without it :) Suppositries (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD

I see that you casted a vote for 'keep' at the AfD on Indians in Afghanistan and specifically pointed out to an earlier version to be kept. As a neutral editor, can you have another look at the article? This article was nominated for deletion on the basis of WP:COATRACK because of two sentences. I'm afraid that ever since that nomination, it has become even more WP:COATRACK (this time on the part of users who actually wanted it deleted). Having initially casted a 'keep' vote too, I'm not sure about this anymore. The matter has become too politicised. Mar4d (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I might remind you that WP:BRD (a very good essay) would leave you fully within your rights to revert much of the addition that you don't like. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Last block and something to notice

I've replied to you on the block section on my talk page which you might want to read, in specific, I didn't revert him as a reaction to the block and rather before you blocked him (I've closed that discussion anyway but you should know that I do get drawn to editwars some times but I don't editwar by myself.. will try to improve on the former).

There are a few things which are making me very suspicious and I'd rather that you take a look at them. I mentioned an editor (User:DBigXray) who was once hounding me on your talk page while commenting on some previous issue. JCAla 'needlessly' informed him of being mentioned on your talk page to which he has now replied with a blatant attack. Next, Darkness Shines nominated the article Indians in Afghanistan for deletion... Mar4d was the creator and me the only some what significant contributor with few edits on the article... DS getting to that article might have a small probability of going through my contributions but I assumed good faith there, but how does JCAla know that it was nominated for deletion and goes there to comment for a "strong delete"? My contributions or the email feature? Next to shift it from suspicious to obvious, DBigXRay comments there with the same although he surely can't be watching that page either. Then DBigXray calls me a disruptive editor for explained single time removal of unsourced content here while having no edit history of the article himself. Not to mention I got probably canvassing accusations for informing the page creator of its deletion which was the nominator's job actually and didn't seem to be done (or atleast I didn't see it). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of using off wiki communication to bypass the consensus building process? Do you not think perhaps those other two editors look at my contributions? As an administrator I believe Magog can see I have never activated the e-mail option on my user account. I request you retract your baseless accusation. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your email feature is not necessary to mail them I think. And I never said you did it, He can look into it himself. Funny how you and JCAla run to inform him of the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As for my block of you (TG) the other night, I've been thinking about it, and I'm not sure if it was the right thing to do. I could go either way; on the one hand, you are in the right to be observing the spirit of WP:BRD, but on the other, your editing style has been heavy-handed - even if not as heavy as DS and JC. I do not regret my recent blocks of DS, JC, or the Pakistani IP that was hounding DS.

As for the collaboration you're seeing: it is probably off-wiki communication of some sort, but it's just as likely that they're watching each other's contributions. There's not much that can be done about it; fortunately, consensus is achieved by discussion, not by brute force of numbers, a fact that has been missed by them often (JC seems to be playing WP:IDHT when I bring it up). This is the reason that the canvassing under the pretense of "informing" other editors in ways not normally performed (and only ever editors on their own side; nice way to show your cards there, DS) isn't as big a deal as it might be - but if it spreads you can be sure I'll be saying something to them. It's also likely there is sockpuppetry occurring somewhere here, but it's hard to know where it is, or even if it is occurring.

As for the comment on DBXR's talk page: it was moderately uncivil but I suggest you grow a thicker skin. But the revert by DBXR calling your edits disruptive was itself inappropriate and I will warn him for it. If I were in your shoes, I would post on the talk page, and if he doesn't respond soon, readd it; I realize I blocked you for that recently for revert warring but he's given nothing other than WP:BATTLEGROUND reasoning and put nothing on the talk page himself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. JCAla (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I reacted much worse to a block I got on 1st Dec for reporting JCAla considering it a punitive block with no explanation while I declared I had backed off in advance, took the three reviewing admins to ANI and dropped it only till atleast explanations were given for their perspective of the block. You might consider this growing some skin since this one was a bit more in grey... I actually thought before appealing the last block at all but did it anyway. Hope its my last. I can sure bare minor talk page attacks but I just put this one here in context. I know consensus shouldn't be affected with mere numbers but it does have some affect, also the number might not matter but the tilting one-sided arguments which the canvassed editors would then provide would affect the consensus. Not to mention that if it gets persistent, it'll only create more contention. DBXR was having stalking issues with me (if you see my earliest archives) but he went inactive for some time. Now that he is active his sudden return to unwatched pages and commenting in support of the editors I have conflicts was a red flag. Canvassing is a serious issue as I see it (maybe as bad as socking). About socking, there's some obvious socking going on, especially an IP that trolled the 71 war talk page for quite some time recently. I didn't revert DBXR since he added a source this time (though NPOV might stand) but I'm some what confused about reverting since both my last blocks were after reverting, notifying and warning while that is said to be the proper way of discussing letting the standing version reign. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

re JC: I am a very blunt individual. I prefer to work out on the open, so if there's something I'd say in private, I am willing to say it publicly. Sorry if that's offended you. I'll give further explanation of anything in there if you'd like. But the part of informing other editors? Yeah, I notice no one informed me when there was a thread opened by you on me on ANI (despite clear instructions to do so), and yet you're quick to inform others (even when it's not required). That sort of action, like I said, is a great way of showing your cards, meaning showing that you are carrying a bias. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

re TG: I still don't think you're 100% innocent, which is bad. The fact that TP, who IIRC is on your side in many of the content disputes, agrees with me says there's room for improvement. Theoretically, if ArbCom were to review the situation, you'd probably find yourself with some sort of temporary topic ban as well. I'm just letting you know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I accepted the fact that I'm easily drawn to revert when editors try to repeatedly add the content even when I'm willing to discuss. I did let go this time (as you noticed at DBXR)... I'm trying on it but then again, some editors want the content "in" no matter what. For the canvassing and socking going on around, I'll keep a tab on the issue. On a sidenote, the best way of saving yourself from a block or getting the other one a block along with you seems here to be flooding the ANI/AN3 report with all kinds of content disputes and other accusations as I've seen common in many editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@Magog First, I commented on a thread on ANI you were active on. So, naturally, one would assume you were watching a thread you were involved in. Second, you blocked me for reporting an edit warrior who had six different edit wars going on, but indulge in ridiculous conspiracy theories when same editor comes here to share his conspiracy theories about me? Third, when someone (DBXR) is being accused of a joke in a thread carrying my name, yes, I will inform that someone. Fourth, TP has been on TopGun's side in content disputes twice and been opposed to TopGun twice also. Fifth, there is no off-wiki communication between DS and me. Sixth, your unspecified accusations of sock-puppeting considering the IPs that turned up in favor of TopGun, I won't even honor with a comment. Conclusion: Another joke. JCAla (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

re TG: yes, that's WP:SOUP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear I don't take "sides". I speak my own personal opinion and whatever that is, that's what it is.--v/r - TP 22:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

re JCAla: 1) No, I'm talking about a different thread which was opened only about me, and for which you gave no notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Asking Magog to leave administrative actions to other admins in matters related to TopGun's content disputes. And you either know that and are playing stupid, you choose not to remember it because it doesn't fit your agenda (I believe this is the case), or perhaps your memory is so fantastically selective. 2) We've been over this above. You broke this open. The fact you keep repeating it is WP:IDHT. 4) Why the Hell are you bringing this up? It's unrelated to my rebuke of you. 5&6) Wrong. Again, you read what you wanted to. I said it was possible and likely from someone involved, not you.

I am getting really sick of your consistent and breathtakingly deep application of WP:IDHT. Seriously - learn to start seeing things from the other guy's perspective, or you are going to end up getting blocked indefinitely. You seem to forget that I've been trying to help you and have agreed with you on the issues (of course you don't remember this, like every other thing I've pointed out to you that you didn't want to hear). Seriously - shape up right now and stop looking at everything as someone for you or against you. Or I will personally lead the charge to see you topic-banned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

@TP, ok. Taken notice. JCAla (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

@Magog, can you not once talk to me without those attacks and drama? 1) I made this first a note and then a subsection of the thread you were active on. I don't know who turned it into a single thread with just two ==. Understand? 5&6) Read your reply to TopGun again. How often have you been mentioning me? "even if not as heavy as DS and JC. I do not regret my recent blocks of DS, JC, ... As for the collaboration you're seeing: it is probably off-wiki communication of some sort, but it's just as likely that they're watching each other's contributions. There's not much that can be done about it; fortunately, consensus is achieved by discussion, not by brute force of numbers, a fact that has been missed by them often (JC seems to be playing WP:IDHT when I bring it up). This is the reason that the canvassing under the pretense of "informing" other editors in ways not normally performed ...." TG not as heavy-handed? You are not sure if his block was justified but do not regret ours? Probably off-wiki communication? Brute force of number when trying to bring in some uninvolved editors into a discussion? Canvassing under the pretense of "informing"? Seriously all points are wrong. All can be categorized under "blah". TopGun is one funny guy who got nerves. He comes here (while others were focusing on content) making wild accusations about socking (I don't even know who is supposed to be a sock and who is supposed to be a sock-master) while three IPs[7][8][9] have turned up "in support" of him, editing disruptively. One last addition, and something for you to truly notice. TParis made an attempt to move the Taliban issue forward, which I appreciate. We were finally discussing the content at hand and things were moving forward ... until TopGun in the best Lagoo sab manner ran to you with all these conspiracy theories, starting the whole non-content based discussion all over again. It depends on you now, to either realize or to not realize. I am not interested in this time-consuming needless discussion anymore. I will mind my business and you two can indulge in whatever theories you like. I do not care. JCAla (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Magog, your presumption of off wiki canvassing is a dire indictment of your inability to actually look into the issues at hand. Your presumption of canvassing is shows another lack of good faith. You say I tipped my hand by informing two editors they were being accused of off wiki communications and tag teaming? Who else would I inform of such accusations? I am of the opinion that you, and TG, should strike your personal attacks. No doubt you will not. There is no doubt in my mind that from your comments above you have become personally invested in this issue, to the extant that you will not AGF and presume there is a conspiracy against TG. You speak of socks and meat puppetry, [10] And of course you already had to block two IP editors who were reverting all of mine and JCAla additions. I suppose that of course means nothing. I am done with you, you quite simply are unable to see that which is happening. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, I'd like you to note that several times TopGun and I have also been able to make progress with Darkness Shines and you've had the same effect that TopGun has recently had. It seems that if it were just you, DS, and I; or DS, TopGun, and I; progress could be made. But when you and TonGun become involved together, that's when progress takes a halt. I'm not completely blaming you, but I am sure Magog notices this too. Don't let Darkness Shines' support of your behavior confuse you, you will get blocked (and so will TopGun) if you don't stop this battlefield mentality. Just because your buddy has your back isn't going to help. @DS, this sort of history is what leads a reasonable person to believe there is coordination. It's not a bad assumption, I've concluded as much myself. The difference between Magog and I is that I am involved and Magog is not. @TopGun, just because I've largely agreed with you, don't think that means I'm going to support you if you get blocked for your battlefield mentality. Quit warring. @TopGun & JCAla: I think you both need to either get adopted or find a mentor. I'm willing to mentor either of you, but somehow I don't think my offer will be taken, so instead I can recommend mentors. Your behaviors are not conducive to collaboration. @Everyone: And for fucks sake, can we all just leave Magog's talk page alone for 24+ hours? This has gone on long enough. All of us can grow thicker skin. There isn't a lack of blame to share and no one is going to convince Magog of their innocence.--v/r - TP 13:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to comment any further on this. The only dispute all of us four (you, DS, TG and me) were ever involved simultaneously in was the Taliban content dispute. What you describe in you first sentence, simply did not happen. TG has these kind of disputes (in which I am not involved) with different unrelated editors. You are always welcome to leave me a balanced advise on my talk. JCAla (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I started this section not because of any content dispute but the given reasons. This is Magog's talk page and those who do not wish to comment should not. TP, I've quit any reverting to these editors in specific but the way they repeatedly add content instead of discussing is wrong. JCAla, the socking and the case about Indians in Afghanistan are serious issues. It obvious when all editors who's ever opposed me come to the same forum with no editing history on that page and with no previous interaction to each other, that is why I asked Magog to investigate. I've not specifically accused anyone so stop the flooding. You have no business in what ever content disputes I have and there's no limit to disputing content on as many pages as you find so. Magog, I guess any discussion that I start on your talk page wont stop without a close template. Just keep an eye on the canvassing/socking (I'll probably ask you before making a report at ANI when there's another incident). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for placing that header on AFD, that'll atleast make a point to the new comers and tell the closer to be careful while summarizing. Can you do something to make the RFC at Talk:Taliban more inviting - people wont want to be bitten in the contention that's there between all the involved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you add it? It's {{notavote}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The same template? Ok. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sock activities

Since I am not taking part in the discussion we had above anymore for outlined reasons, shall I come here or go elsewhere with repeated sock activities like these: 86.181.135.97? JCAla (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How am I a sock? its not my fault my ip keeps flip flopping and no I have not been banned JCala the ip 109 was indeed mine however the router resets itself after connection lags stop trying to excuse your pov pushing by muffling me 86.181.135.97 (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This user seems to be banned User:Nangparbat based off the same ISP and grammatical usage. --Rvd4life (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another. When will you notice? JCAla (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Editwar

• I'm sure I'm in right to make a second BRD revert here (I've made only one yet) but I was blocked on a previous second revert so I'm telling you of the on going edit war here. [11].
• This too (although I made a few amends once before), I reverted everything (once) to a neutral version (including removal of my own additions - and keeping the good edits by one of the editors) to rescue the article and I've been reverted again. This was done seeing your advice to another user above.[12]

This would surely be an editwar with 3RR on first and 3RR violated on the second. I don't know if you consider your self an involved editor on the second case for your comment on the AFD and an edit, but then first one is there too. As per yours and TP's advise I'm not going to continue to make a second revert and engage in the edit war but JCAla's is already deep in one. Hope I don't get a mutual block for this too. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:BRD-NOT "is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring. BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."

Since I rewrote the article uninvolved, absolutely neutral editors have written about the current version:

• "The article in its current state is well-sourced, and the topic itself appears notable."
• "The article contains ample well referenced sections about various aspects involving Indians in Afghanistan."

I have done but one revert according to WP:BRD-NOT. The IP 86.181.135.97 is the disruptive editor 109.150.60.235 who has casted multiple statements on RFCs and whose edits to the article and other articles have been reverted by multiple editors among other things for claiming false consensus (which I remember someone else has also prominently done in the past).[13][14] (Note: User:Rvd4life is referring to IP86)

This is just another attempt by TopGun to turn this off-content.

JCAla (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just bringing over what the neutral User:Dream Focus wrote, "Click on the Google news archive link at the top, and the first results are about the president of Afghanistan commenting on how his government will take all possible measures for the security of Indians in Afghanistan, plus they be targeted and killed there. The article contains ample well referenced sections about various aspects involving Indians in Afghanistan." I ask anyone forming a judgement on this issue to search for "Indians in Afghanistan" at google.com and see what issues are being addressed and then come back here and tell me what is the problem. Is the issue not noteworthy? Are the sources used (New York Times, PBS, Foreign Policy and others) not reliable? Is there any valid reason given on wikipedia policy basis to remove all the content at once while other neutral editors not involved in the previous disputes consider the content valid and well-sourced? And, I strongly suggest to read WP:BRD-NOT again. JCAla (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence? When will you notice? JCAla (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Bessie McCoy as Yama Yama Girl.jpg

Hi, I moved it to Commons and see that you deleted it, thanks. But the image is still on en.wp with articles and stuff still linked to it. Is there a delay or some other way to link directly to the Commons image? Green Cardamom (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it was a bug in the MediaWiki software; I fixed it be purging the page cache (WP:PURGE). Cheers. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The picture may be used for DYK on the upcoming April Fools Day so wanted to make sure it's in good shape. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:1990USCensusLogo.svg

You deleted this file - thank you very much for helping to clean out the F8 backlog. However, this file was apparently causing minor problems for For the Common Good, so I would like to look at the wikitext that was present on the file description page to diagnose the problem. Could you please provide this text for me? Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The text was written exclusively by User:Simtropolitan, save trivial changes:

== Summary ==
{{Information
|Description    ={{en|1=Logo used for the [[United States Census, 1990]]}}
|Source         = US Census Report, 1990
|Date           =circa 1990
|Author = United States Census Bureau, artist unknown
|Permission     ={{PD-USGov-Census}}
|other_versions =Non-vector<br> [[File:1990logo.gif|200px]]
}}


== Talkback ==

<div style="background-color: #BBDDFF; border: #4169E1 1px solid; margin: 1em 0 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: middle; ">[[File:Nuvola apps edu languages.svg|left|40px|link=User talk:Bk314159#File:13AFHQ.jpg at Commons]]'''Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at  [[User talk:Bk314159#File:13AFHQ.jpg at Commons|Bk314159's talk page]].'''<br /><span class="plainlinks" style="font-size: 88%; font-weight: normal;">Message added 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC). You can [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} remove this notice] at any time.</span></div>
-- [[User:Bk314159|Bk314159]] ([[User talk:Bk314159|Talk to me]] and [[Special:Contributions/Bk314159|find out what I've done]]) 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

== Binturong is sourced ==

I added the sourcing statement. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 15:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
== Licensing ==

{{PD-USGov-Census}}

{{Now Commons|File:1990USCensusLogo.svg|date=2012-01-16|reviewer=Magog the Ogre}}

Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of Unblock

Hi Magog, Please reconsider the unblock of Mountainwhiskey. He has been confirmed as a sock puppet of Amazer007. Yet the block has been lifted. Can you please review? Please find the evidence here```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.228.74 (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We've already been over this. MountainWhiskey received a temporary block for sockpuppetry, and the sock account was blocked to avoid further abuse. But MW is not banned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleting images

Hi there, I noticed you deleted an image that I yesterday made available on the Commons. Thanks very much, it's great to have that done so quickly. I did this with quite a few images yesterday, all Katharine Hepburn related, and I was wondering if the rest of them (the originals, on here) could be deleted too? I'd really like to have the commons images showing up on Hepburn's page, as they have much better descriptions and I want to take the page to FAC soon. These are the images: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] You don't need to worry about any "previous versions", they are all inferior (and sometimes completely different images, from when I didn't realise that was the wrong way to go about it). If you can get this done that would be great, thanks!--Lobo512 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done User:MGA73 and I are the ones who primarily works on the backlog (User:Multichill works on it, but usually only the images he tags himself), and the backlog is too great to get all of them right away. I just happened to work on some of the ones recently tagged yesterday. Anyway, I deleted the old versions where they were completely different per WP:CSD#G7, and I copied the old versions to Commons for archival purposes with my bot where it was the same image but retouched. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! You're one of those unsung heros of wikipedia, who does the small but important jobs not many people take notice of. :) Cheers, all the best --Lobo512 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:ALDO Groupe logo.png

Hi! Sure that this is not free in Canada? In that case we may have a problem on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

commons:Commons:TOO#Common law countries. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Crap... :-( Do you still run your bots on files in Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by MGA73? --MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If that Aldo logo is a standard font, then it should be OK to transfer; otherwise, I'd just assume keep it local. Anyway, what do you want me to do with those files? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Files have a different name on Commons and should be delinked. --MGA73 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do a one-time run (as opposed to permanently adding the bot to my whitelist, which would cause it to constantly flag your files and delink them when you're not ready for it). Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait nevermind, that's approved by you, not your bot. Yeah that will work any time I run it. If I go more than a few days without doing so, let me know. Some day I plan to actually put up a public interface, but it's a pain so I haven't yet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Yes please do not delink what my bot has "reviewed". Today I felt like working (and is still working) on files with a different name because there is now so few that we may have a chance to kill them all :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you could...

Hello,

You deleted File:XYCoordinates.gif, as I asked. Thank you. On Commons, the text is badly rendered. If you could send me, by mail, the wikitext of the file just before you deleted it, it would help me a lot to correct the errors there.

Just in case you have doubts on me, I am very active on the French Wikipedia (see fr:Special:Contributions/Cantons-de-l'Est).

Thank you !

Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Jose Alfredo 12JAMB.jpg

Magog, the image referenced above was uploaded by me over 4 years ago from a copy in my files(with no caption) of the original print-I assume that it was a publicity shot taken in the 1960s. I do not know the photographers name, nor the recording company, though I suspect that it was CBS. I'm afraid I didn't have a thorough knowledge of the use of unattributed photos at the time. I believe that, under the circumstances, it should be deleted. Another user asked me about its use this AM, and this (I had considered deletion before, but I am prone to senior moments) spurred my memory. What say you? If you would please leave a note on my talk page I would appreciate it.--Lyricmac (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've outright deleted it, as the GFDL licensing message is clearly incorrect. It would have to be one of two things: either copyrighted (it was first published in Mexico), or if it was first published in the US (or published there within 30 days of publication abroad), then it is public domain in the US only. If you think there is any chance for the latter, then let me know, otherwise, it is probable copyright infringement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog.--Lyricmac (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request for review and arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JCAla (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The user has requested a case at Wikipedia:RFARB#Block review and Afghanistan, India and Pakistan disputes.

In my opinion, this issue may not be ripe for arbitration. Some of the participants appear confused about policy. An RFC/U could be one way of addressing the problem. Arbcom is busy, and their time is precious. At User talk:AGK#Outline vs. proposed decision arbitrator AGK states 'we have several large, difficult cases open at once'. One alternative to arbitration is to ask for bans or blocks at ANI. The volume of data is such that a single ANI thread might not be able to converge on a solution in a reasonable time. So an RFC/U, even though tedious, might be one way to organize it. Let me know if you have any ideas of what to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. While I was love if ArbCom would take the case, I understand they don't have 16 hours per day to work on everything. When (if) the request fails, I will recommend an RFC/U for everyone involved. I may sign it for users on both sides. I don't think an RFC/U on me will get real far; JCAla might do better asking for a second opinion at ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

JCAla has mentioned you as being 'harassed' by me... I think you should clarify that in your own statement since you've not once mentioned something like that to me (other than at most a one time talk page flood discussion initiated by some one else). I don't think he mentioned at all in his statement that he first agreed to your conditions on the article talk which actually required the cases to go through you. If the Arbcom request fails, you're right about him asking for revision of his block at ANI. But I don't see how RFC/U will fit on any user (other than Darkness Shines) since they don't have behavior or editing problems as such rather content disputes (given that JCAla refrained after the Talk:Taliban agreement). For me, I have already faced blocks for my previous editwar issues and have not repeated them (can't speak for JCAla). --lTopGunl (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Magog, I posted a quote and a diff of your statement to help the arbitrators move things along. I think some of them may have been waiting for you to comment. What you said seems clear enough, and they should be able to dispose of the matter now. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Which I removed. If you wish to make a statement, I encourage you to do so yourself. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You're a real hostile fellow. You should leave a comment on my talk page if there is an issue, not revert me like some vandal. I think it would be best for you to resign as arbitration clerk if you need to lord your powers over other editors so much. It's very unimpressive. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'you' meant Magog, which unfortunately I didn't make very clear either in my language or my indenting, so apologies for that. As I said in my edit summary when removing the initial post, I suggested that either or both of you comment, which Jehochman has done. I encourage you Magog do so as well. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but in the future please don't remove my posts (nor anybody else's if they are acting in good faith) under normal circumstances. Please just ask me to fix anything that needs fixing, by leaving a message on my talk page. If you ask somebody to fix something and they do it, the matter is resolved without confrontation. Deleting a post is a very confrontational action. I didn't see a message on my talk page, and when I saw your comment here it made me feel like my input was completely unwelcome, when in fact all I needed to do was change the heading. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that the arbitration has been declined by some ArbCom members - not yet fully but nevertheless -, I ask you to understand that I consider there to be a huge problem with how you have handled this issue recently (just like you consider there to be a problem with my editing). Other administrator do see through TopGun's behavior [23][24], but you don't seem to see it and worse even acted upon his indirect requests. With all due respect, I ask you to voluntarily step aside with regards to disputes between TopGun and me. If you are right, and I am the disruptive editor, surely, administrators at ANI will notice, don't you think? If TopGun is the disruptive editor they will also notice. I am always open to your advise, but ask you to take a step back from taking any actions and maybe with some time you might see the whole situation in a different light. Can you agree to this request? JCAla (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I will not agree to that. I will agree to try to handle things in an unbiased manner in light of all evidence, and not rush to judgment that someone is acting improperly. I also agree that you are free to make reports about TG's editing on any noticeboard or on any administrator talk page. I will agree that any administrative action I take against any particular side will be subject to a second opinion by another administrator; that means if I block you in the future, for example, I will make a clear notice on your talk page that any administrator is free to reverse the block without asking for my permission or waiting for further administrator comment. Or I will ask for a second opinion in IRC first (sorry, I realize it's not a public log, but if I have another admin there agree it's a good block, I will only act on it if that admin lets me tell you who they are). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

When TopGun comes to you in such a regular manner with his reports and conspiracies, you should tell him, "go to the wikipedia noticeboards with that, because they have been made for these kind of things". We two are involved in a conduct dispute here, and it is not appropriate for you to take actions against me. You know very well that a normal administrator will be very hesitant to reverse the decision of another administrator. So, once again, if you are right, there is no need for you to take actions since others would surely notice. You should show some splendor and good faith and take this step voluntarily. JCAla (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. I have not been in a content dispute with you. I already told you that about 10 times but you never listen, so I'm not going to repeat why. Go back in the history and read it. Anyway, as for blocks, they will not be hesitant if I come right out and say "any administrator who reviews this may undo my action." Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I said "conduct dispute". JCAla (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A "conduct dispute" is not sufficient reason for me to recuse myself from the issue. By that standard, anyone who has ever brought up a problem with your conduct or blocked you cannot block you in the future. I'm reserving the right here, JCAla, but I really hope not to have to use it. If, instead of consistently complaining about the evil intentions and actions of other editors and going to the noticeboards, you just stopped and actually discussed the issue, there would be no further problems with you. All you're ever doing is arguing about arguing. I would recommend a voluntary self-ban from the Wikipedia namespace and from the talk page of any administrator or opponent in your disputes. By golly, you just might find you actually get somewhere by doing that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, by that definition only the one whose actions I have distinctly questioned (even requesting arbitration on) should not act in cases concerning me and leave this to others. And again, what you say I supposedly do, I never did. I reported TopGun two times for edit warring, wrote a comment to you on ANI and requested arbitration. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not the one consistently "complaining about the evil intentions ... of other editors and going to the noticeboards." Read this.And this. This is not me. I am tired of you mixing everything up. For the other point, you know full well, that any normal administrator will be hesitant to revise the decision of another, whatever you say about being fine with it. But if you consider yourself indispensable in this case, fine. We will see if this pattern of unbalanced decisions continues. I have kindly asked you to volutarily honor my request, now it depends on you. JCAla (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your block of Darkness Shines on his talk, since these kinds of actions I requested arbitration on and you even cited me in your reasons on his talk. JCAla (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)