Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hi Navou, thanks for your comment at the ] article. I think that we will need page protection. The first three words of the article ("Fred Dalton Thompson") have been unchanged since 2004, and there is no consensus yet to change them. I am concerned that if I seek page protection, then the version protected might change those three words. How would you suggest I proceed?] 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:30, 9 September 2007
Due to circumstances beyond my immediate control, I will not be editing as frequently as I would like to. I will return soon, as soon as I can. I will attempt to check talk page messages daily.
If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise.
If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
Contact Me
Please feel free to leave me a message on this talk page. This is the quickest way. I check my talk more often then my email.
Email me if you want to share something sensitive. Or do not wish to use the talk page. But consider using the talk page if possible.
The Navou on Freenode IRC is me, however, I am not monitoring this nick. It is a bot designed to parse vandalism, new accounts, and unblock requests to a program I am creating. The bot is designed to ignore anything else.
Rdsmith4 has closed your RfA as successful so you should now have a shiny new mop and bucket. Use them wisely! Add your name to WP:LA if its not there already and feel free to get in touch if there's anything I can help you with... WjBscribe05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I was on my way to say the same thing, but a certain Mr Busybody has preempted me, shamelessly encouraging bureaucratic sloppiness. Navou, many congratulations; act prudently and professionally, and make your supporters proud. — Dan | talk06:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RfA, Navou. Here are your shiny new mop and bucket. Use them wisely! :-) Best regards, Húsönd16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Now go block Jimbodelete the main page go do something good with the shiny new buttons! And do remember...
If you choose to block someone, you are abusive. If you choose not to do so, you are enabling disruptive users and trolls.
When you protect a page, you will be notified shortly that you protected the wrong version. At this point, it is important to immediately revert to a different wrong version. Repeat this procedure as often as needed.
If you close a contentious AfD based on numbers, you are treating AfD as a vote. If you close it based on strength of argument, you are ignoring consensus.
The more angry messages you get left on your talk page, the better a job you're doing. Bonus points for swearing, bolding, ALL CAPS, or any combination thereof. However, this does not apply if you posted the messages in question.
While I appreciate your protection on Mousepad, the protection is exactly not what I asked for. I asked for long-term protection because this issue has been going on for a year and the page has been repeatedly protected from this one known variable IP address (you gave just 3 days). I asked for semi-protect because the only issue is IP address - edits from logged in users have been perfectly fine, and the page is stable (you gave full-protect). I'd like to know what the reasoning was for short-term full instead of long-term semi; though I am seeing that this seems to have been your first use of your admin powers (congrats, btw!), and I'm wondering if things got turned around? --Thespian22:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for bringing this up. The request was not an easy one, and it appears it had been skipped over so I took it. I've taken a loot at the contribution history of the recent IP edits, and I'm not really seeing how those edits fit into one of the categories of vandalism at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Could you take a look at the WP:VANDAL page, and the MOUSE history, let me know where I'm mistaken and I'll alter the protection. But from here, it appears like a content dispute. Thank you for being patient. Best regards, Navou23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Baptism of fire for the n00b admin :) FWIW, I just want to say that, as a regular RPP admin, I endorse the call you made here - Alison☺23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a case of 'give it two days and they'll go away'; this user has been adding personal attacks, and this NPOV, COI edit (along with rants) for the last year. Previous times when they have gotten to the 'daily and more frequent' changes, the page has been semi-protected for a month at a time. The *day* that expired (both times), the IP editor has started the edits again. It's a long term problem that has nothing to do with content, and has to do with the fact that this IP editor (who has identified himself as Armando Fernandez in the past to Dicklyon, apparently) wants to have created the mousepad. It counts, in its way, as 'Sneaky vandalism' ("This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles..."), as a repeated NPOV (and thus vandalism: "Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned."), etc. It's not a content dispute in the normal fashion because he's never, ever going to listen to what we say; indeed, because you locked the page, he's already abusing you on the talk page for 'assisting the plagiarism'. Because I was asking for an extended semi-protect, and other admins had left it because I was asking for something serious, it was likely not a good choice for a very first admin action - I think it would have been better not to do anything in this case, because this didn't actually do anything - no identified editor was doing anything other than reverting the IP edits. This was a non-solution. --Thespian00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, I'm now monitoring the article, too. Any sign of shennanigans from IP editors or SPAs and I'll revert/block so fast, their head will spin. I don't want to lock out genuine editors (IPs included) just because of the misbehaviour of one. If it persists and is much heavier, we should consider medium-term semi-prot (not indef), the idea being that we want the guy to go away. - Alison☺01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
we should consider medium-term semi-prot...Which was what I asked for (I said long-term in my request, but I meant in wikipedia terms :-) - 3mos, maybe 6, as I mentioned on the Mousepad talk page), after over a year of this. (edit: since the previous one month semis didn't work, my brain seemed to think of three as the next step up from that) --Thespian01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you have protected this article . However, it must be stated that the original picture that was in there is not the one that is currently on the page. The reason user: Ejfetters wanted the article protected was so that I would stop reverting the page. Mind you, I never reverted the page more than 3 times (as he did yesterday in reverting the Simon Cowell page over 3 times). And, I reverted the Star Trek image because he had already replaced the original image with a new one before a consensus was made about it getting replaced as you will see here ]. There was never an official vote, other than him saying agreed after ONE user states how he thinks the image should be replaced. The article that is currently shown is a new one, he has added before everyone reached a consensus a decision about it. The only thing I was doing was trying to keep the proper image in there. There’s really no reason for that article to be protected other than to keep him from continually trying to add the new image. This was the original image that has been there for a very long time now ] Tratare03:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am glad someone gets where I am coming from in all of this. I am having so much trouble trying to explain this to Ejfetters. He most certainly didn't tell you that he had already added in the new image, before you protected the page. As I told him, the voting, on the discussion page, should be about the removal of the pic, that has already been there for a long time. This is according to the editing history of that article. However, he has already put in his new image on September 5th, before a vote to remove the old image. Nothing I can do now, as he got you to protect the article. He's also started up a voting discussion about the removal of the older picture, but it's already been removed and protected. I tell him over and over, that the image needs to go back to its original way before a voting process about removing the older pic is started. However, it was pretty impossible and it ended up with him telling me how he was going to get an admin to protect the article, to keep me from putting back the old image. Note; I never reverted more than 3 times Tratare12:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, protection is not an endorsement of any version. The protection is applied in whatever version the page is found in, so as to stop edit wars, and reversions from constantly occurring, and to get folks to start using the talk page. I locked the article how I found it, without regards to the current version. Once consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted early. Best regards, Navou17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear! Perhaps I am just bad at explaining this, if you could explain it to him, Seramphimblade. I mean even your friend knows you've protected the wrong version. No one is allowed to change the image until a consensus on changing it is reached, Navuo. There was a dispute between the images so it stays the same until a vote happens to get rid of it for a different one. That vote will also decide what kind of new image. However, Ejfetters has already changed the image and added in a new one. The consensus discussion is about requesting removal of the image that has been there. However, the old image has already been removed by Ejfetters. This is why I tried to add back the old image. Ejfetters was supposed to wait until a consensus was made. Please ask seramphimblade what I mean if I haven't explained my self so that you understand. Thank you! :) Tratare20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You really do need to read the link that Seraphimblade provided above. Seriously - we don't endorse any particular revision. All we want to do is stop the disruption which Navou now has. Sorta :) - Alison☺21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to click on the link! Sorry deary! :) Ask someone else to. I have a feeling it's immature, judging from what you said and I don't deal with immaturity. Anyway, if you're not going to put the correct image on it, then get used by Ejfetters. Not my problem. Done. Bye! :) Tratare00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Navou, thanks for your comment at the Fred Thompson article. I think that we will need page protection. The first three words of the article ("Fred Dalton Thompson") have been unchanged since 2004, and there is no consensus yet to change them. I am concerned that if I seek page protection, then the version protected might change those three words. How would you suggest I proceed?Ferrylodge18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Done Cheers, Navou 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)