| Revision as of 12:55, 23 August 2012 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 10d) to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 27.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:06, 24 August 2012 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,769 edits →Your proposal at AE: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| The protection you instituted on ] didn't result in much productive reference to Talk, (except from those who were already referring to Talk) but that was at least in part due to the AfD on Sandra Fluke that recently resulted in a "delete". On that page, several editors made constructive suggestions that the prior consensus on the scope of that page should change, and that in hindsight, it needs a LOT of editing down. Have put concrete editorial proposals on Talk, and asked the involved parties to comment. Have a certain fear that the Tendentious revert wars will begin the second Protection comes off, and would like to give a substantive discussion on Talk a chance first, before edit warring scares them off. --] (]) 18:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) | The protection you instituted on ] didn't result in much productive reference to Talk, (except from those who were already referring to Talk) but that was at least in part due to the AfD on Sandra Fluke that recently resulted in a "delete". On that page, several editors made constructive suggestions that the prior consensus on the scope of that page should change, and that in hindsight, it needs a LOT of editing down. Have put concrete editorial proposals on Talk, and asked the involved parties to comment. Have a certain fear that the Tendentious revert wars will begin the second Protection comes off, and would like to give a substantive discussion on Talk a chance first, before edit warring scares them off. --] (]) 18:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :If an edit war starts up again after protection expires, you can consider making a new request at ]. I think we need to wait and see if the expiry of protection will lead to any positive results. There was good participation in the AfD and in the DRV, so there are a number of editors who care about the article. ] (]) 20:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC) | :If an edit war starts up again after protection expires, you can consider making a new request at ]. I think we need to wait and see if the expiry of protection will lead to any positive results. There was good participation in the AfD and in the DRV, so there are a number of editors who care about the article. ] (]) 20:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Your proposal at AE == | |||
| Hi Ed. I like your suggestion at AE and ] in general, as it does not involve ] (and I consider ''both'' sides constructive). It's refreshing to see a non-ban proposal at AE. However, I'd like to point out some things (and of course, you should keep my biases in mind, but also please note I've ''not'' been involved in the editing of those Baltic articles). | |||
| Your proposal seems to identify VM as a guilty party, based as far as I can tell on two pieces of evidence: 1) his past involvement in EEML and 2) his combative language. The first of those is an old 2009-2010 story that should have, IMHO, no bearing on present day issues (also, see Lothar von Richthofen 's comment). The second one, I agree with you, is more worrisome; I myself have told VM several times to be more civil. This has not achieved much, and perhaps a temporary and voluntary topic ban is a good ramp up to drive the point about ] home. | |||
| That said, I do have trouble agreeing that VM is the only guilty party. Consider ], and all the evidence VM presents. While VM may score worse than Skäpperöd's with regards to civility, I think he has a point about the other editors editing disruptively, misrepresenting the sources, tag teaming to remove content they don't like, and trying to use AE to enforce their dominance. As far as I am concern, their actions are much more damaging to our project than VM's incivility. To reward them for this behavior by removing VM from the area is giving them ''exactly'' what they want. Are you sure this is the the message you want to send - in essence saying to Skäpperöd "you did nothing wrong, I agree with you, let me help remove VM from the area so you can edit without his input"? | |||
| Personally, I would strongly suggest trying to get all parties to voluntarily remove themselves from Königsberg article for some period of time, and then, adopt a group-1RR on it (as in, all parties mentioned in this request agree not to revert more than once per day ''as a group'' on all Baltic topics). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 17:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:06, 24 August 2012
|
MoS vandal IPs
You've rangeblocked this character before; they make changes to infoboxes that don't conform to the MoS.
The ranges are roughly 203.218. and 218.102.
Radiopathy •talk• 16:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here are recent contributions from the /16 range associated with 203.218: range contribs.
- Here is the same thing for 218.102: Range contribs.
- Can you please review these contributions and specify some individual IPs who you think are making bad edits? Either vandalism or edits against the MOS or local consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have blocked 203.218.105.101 for two weeks because he fits the pattern. Also one of his edits was reverted by Clue Bot. A rangeblock of anonymous editing from 203.218 seems unwise since the range is very active. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- It may be active because the person who is doing the MoS vandalism is IP hopping with both ranges and is very persistent! Maybe whack-a-mole is the only way. Radiopathy •talk• 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have blocked 203.218.105.101 for two weeks because he fits the pattern. Also one of his edits was reverted by Clue Bot. A rangeblock of anonymous editing from 203.218 seems unwise since the range is very active. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please review these contributions and specify some individual IPs who you think are making bad edits? Either vandalism or edits against the MOS or local consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I've had a good look, the 203 range is almost all edits by the MoS warrior; almost everything is related to The Beatles. A rangeblock there probably would not result in much, if any, collateral damage. Radiopathy •talk• 01:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that he sequentially uses IPs from the range. Blocking the latest single IP would be sufficient until he switches again. (Old IPs are not reused). If you still favor a range block, try to search your records and come up with links to the previous discussions. Making an SPI report is desirable for proper record keeping. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, here is the latest: 218.102.106.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk•- I've blocked 218.102.106.44 (talk · contribs) for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- They're socking now: Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk• 11:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)- Do you see Chowkatsun9 vandalizing articles or breaking the WP:MOS? Or repeating any edits by the IP? EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see exactly that; compare the contribs - overlinking, adding uncited content and edit warring on mostly the same articles. Radiopathy •talk• 23:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Do you see Chowkatsun9 vandalizing articles or breaking the WP:MOS? Or repeating any edits by the IP? EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- They're socking now: Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- I've blocked 218.102.106.44 (talk · contribs) for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, here is the latest: 218.102.106.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- It seems to me that he sequentially uses IPs from the range. Blocking the latest single IP would be sufficient until he switches again. (Old IPs are not reused). If you still favor a range block, try to search your records and come up with links to the previous discussions. Making an SPI report is desirable for proper record keeping. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I've had a good look, the 203 range is almost all edits by the MoS warrior; almost everything is related to The Beatles. A rangeblock there probably would not result in much, if any, collateral damage. Radiopathy •talk• 01:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
They are now editing with another IP: 218.103.166.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Radiopathy •talk• 15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- New IP blocked two weeks. To keep an eye on further edits from 218.103.*, see this rangecontribs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
He's at it again with his registered account: Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk• 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
...and a new IP: 218.102.109.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Radiopathy •talk• 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And still another: 218.103.173.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk• 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked the IP for two weeks and 218.103.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Historylover4
Historylover4 (talk · contribs) is continuing with his behavior. - where he first removes am image of an Israeli doctor with no edit summary, then when it is replaced adds images representing Palestinian and Turkish aid and then removes the Israeli image again, seems pretty conclusive (and is an I/P edit). Not sure what's best now and would appreciate suggestions. Plus his other edits in the last couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
- We discussed this editor previously at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 27#User:Historylover4. In my opinion you should open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. I can see the logic of a 6-month ban of Historylover4 from I/P topics. A complaint that is focused on obvious misconduct is best. A few well-chosen diffs might be convincing, though a good-faith explanation is possible for some of the diffs you've proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll try to find time to do this. Oddly enough I don't think I've gone to AE before. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
User:71.178.108.23
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your message
Hi Ed, I have now read the article and commented on the Oxfordian theory talk page sayign the tag can be removed as far as I am concerned. On another matter, there is a tl;dr thread that I started on AN/I. During that thread I discovered that the subject of the thread was on indefinite probation. For future reference, if I were to become aware of new problems involving this editor or someone else on probation, should I go to AN/I, AE or simply ask an uninvolved admin (such as yourself) to look at the issue mentioning the probation in my request?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- You must be asking about WP:ANI#User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day. If you perceive that someone's actions violate their Arbcom-imposed probation you can request enforcement at WP:AE. The wording of the probation is that the editor "is placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." This sounds enforceable, so it only leaves the definition of disruption to be worked out by the responding admins. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your message
Thank you for the message. I have responded at AN3. Please also see this RFPP request. Frustrating situation indeed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Technical move request
Hello AjaxSmack. Please see Talk:Bat lau dung laai#Alternative move to Cantonese transcription. You should probably discuss this move with Deryck Chan if you think this was a bad idea on his part. If you disagree, the best plan is to ask Deryck what options for appealing his decision he can suggest. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really care where the article is moved but I am opposed to users unilaterally overriding a RM that was just closed. Why bother having the RM process if the consensus can be ignored days later? Why should I have to waste my time opening a whole new request in such cases? If RM admins are too squeamish to revert such moves, they shouldn't hang around WP:RM. — AjaxSmack 02:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You can appeal this at any venue you think appropriate, but you chose to file this item as a Technical Request. The instructions for such requests say not to use the technical option if "there has been any past debate about the best title for the page". Another possibility is you could ask Deryck to undo his own move until such time as he wants to open a new formal move discussion to consider his proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sherrod Brown
I would ask you to rethink the protection because there does not appear to be a true dispute here. Setting aside for a minute that what we have is one editor warring against three others, what is really happening is that User:Arbor8 warned User:Organthief1949 on the 15th about adding something to the article, asserting BLP. See User talk:Organthief1949#August 2012. Organthief then turned around and started deleting things based on flimsy and untrue bases. It seems clear to me that this is just a pointy and disruptive snit, and he should be dealt with on that basis, rather than allowing his actions to prevent all editors from improving the article. -Rrius (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, so that happened on a different page. But protection still doesn't seem right. One editor is acting disruptively, and his or her rationales for deletion are still flimsy or untrue. If that editor is edit warring, then the right course would seem to be warning and, if necessary, blocking that editor. Frankly, a little note from you advising him or her to stop edit warring and participate at the talk page would be enough. -Rrius (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I shortened the protection to one day. Others seem to have left adequate warnings for Organthief1949 already. If the problem continues when protection expires let me know, or report it at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Any chance of extending the Protection of the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy
Hi, Ed; The protection you instituted on Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy didn't result in much productive reference to Talk, (except from those who were already referring to Talk) but that was at least in part due to the AfD on Sandra Fluke that recently resulted in a "delete". On that page, several editors made constructive suggestions that the prior consensus on the scope of that page should change, and that in hindsight, it needs a LOT of editing down. Have put concrete editorial proposals on Talk, and asked the involved parties to comment. Have a certain fear that the Tendentious revert wars will begin the second Protection comes off, and would like to give a substantive discussion on Talk a chance first, before edit warring scares them off. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- If an edit war starts up again after protection expires, you can consider making a new request at WP:RFPP. I think we need to wait and see if the expiry of protection will lead to any positive results. There was good participation in the AfD and in the DRV, so there are a number of editors who care about the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your proposal at AE
Hi Ed. I like your suggestion at AE and User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Close_by_agreement.3F in general, as it does not involve banning constructive editors (and I consider both sides constructive). It's refreshing to see a non-ban proposal at AE. However, I'd like to point out some things (and of course, you should keep my biases in mind, but also please note I've not been involved in the editing of those Baltic articles).
Your proposal seems to identify VM as a guilty party, based as far as I can tell on two pieces of evidence: 1) his past involvement in EEML and 2) his combative language. The first of those is an old 2009-2010 story that should have, IMHO, no bearing on present day issues (also, see Lothar von Richthofen 's comment). The second one, I agree with you, is more worrisome; I myself have told VM several times to be more civil. This has not achieved much, and perhaps a temporary and voluntary topic ban is a good ramp up to drive the point about WP:CIVIL home.
That said, I do have trouble agreeing that VM is the only guilty party. Consider what uninvolved editor has said here, and all the evidence VM presents. While VM may score worse than Skäpperöd's with regards to civility, I think he has a point about the other editors editing disruptively, misrepresenting the sources, tag teaming to remove content they don't like, and trying to use AE to enforce their dominance. As far as I am concern, their actions are much more damaging to our project than VM's incivility. To reward them for this behavior by removing VM from the area is giving them exactly what they want. Are you sure this is the the message you want to send - in essence saying to Skäpperöd "you did nothing wrong, I agree with you, let me help remove VM from the area so you can edit without his input"?
Personally, I would strongly suggest trying to get all parties to voluntarily remove themselves from Königsberg article for some period of time, and then, adopt a group-1RR on it (as in, all parties mentioned in this request agree not to revert more than once per day as a group on all Baltic topics). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)