| Revision as of 13:36, 30 September 2012 editJojhutton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,483 edits →Disneyland page protection: poor decision← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:23, 1 October 2012 edit undoGed UK (talk | contribs)Administrators37,253 edits →Disneyland page protection: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| :::Of course I have a problem with that. The fundamental issue here should not be decided by one admin on his talk page. As I've said, you'd be better served trying to reach a consensus on the core issue, otherwise the edit war will simply start again, and it'll need to be protected again. ]] 11:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | :::Of course I have a problem with that. The fundamental issue here should not be decided by one admin on his talk page. As I've said, you'd be better served trying to reach a consensus on the core issue, otherwise the edit war will simply start again, and it'll need to be protected again. ]] 11:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Well take a good look at the edit in question. It's ] and you are insuring that it is currently left in. And you can't discuss anything with a tendentious editor who only shows up every 6 months or so and tries to add his version of original research, won't discuss on the talk page, and may possibly be a sock. I think you are taking the wrong road here and instead of attempting to fix the problem you are standing by a poor decision.--] ]</font> 13:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | ::::Well take a good look at the edit in question. It's ] and you are insuring that it is currently left in. And you can't discuss anything with a tendentious editor who only shows up every 6 months or so and tries to add his version of original research, won't discuss on the talk page, and may possibly be a sock. I think you are taking the wrong road here and instead of attempting to fix the problem you are standing by a poor decision.--] ]</font> 13:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::There's plenty of other editors who you can engage with to form consensus. There's plenty of alternative routes, RFC and 3O are probably the most relevant. If you think they're a sock report them to SPI. If that turns out to be accurate then they can be blocked, and the protection would be no longer necessary. As it is, it's 2 users disagreeing, and it should be a community consensus that agrees the way forward, not just an admin on their talk page. ]] 12:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 24 September 2012 == | == ''The Signpost'': 24 September 2012 == | ||
Revision as of 12:23, 1 October 2012
 | If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it UNLESS I sent you a templated message, in which case, start a conversation here or leave a {{Talkback}} or {{ping}} message. If you leave me a message: I will answer here, so please add it to your watchlist. |
Unprotect request
Kindly unprotect Douglas Tait (stuntman). As noted in the objection to the request, there is no basis for protection. There is just 1 editor's false assumption that all IP edits are automatically vandalism. The same editor also admitted to 3RR in violating WP:BLPREMOVE - but the ed. was not blocked? . As you know, WP:BLPREMOVE instructs that contentious material be removed immediately. That's not 3RR or vandalism, so no violation happened that merits protection. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:61D4:6FD2:B0C6:8F2F (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would be ok with changing to partial-protection. This IP can log in instead of shifting from IP to IP if s/he would like to edit. But to clarify, I only noted 3RR on talk to note my next edit would put me at 3, and that I would not edit beyond that. Unfortunately, this IP reverted 4 times. I would also invite you to weigh-in on what was framed as a content dispute after I made the page protection request. Before then, the IP, over several weeks, continuously removed this material without discussion. The IP was reverted by me and others, and never discussed (despite there being a section in talk I repeatedly pointed to) until the last 24 hours. This is the material the IP says is irrelevant and a BLP violation. It is sourced to four LA Times articles and relates to the subject's early acting and is relevant to things the subject has repeatedly mentioned in interviews (such as they are) so even if WP:NPF applies (and I would bet his publicist would argue it does not!), it seems ok. This is the relevant discussion section on talk, with my more full discussion of the IP's latest points (IP's PA's notwithstanding). If you do not unprotect, would you please revert to the last version edited by somebody other than the IP and me so as to not lock in a version that never had consensus and to avoid rewarding an editor who violates 3RR knowing another interested editor will not, and not leaving time for anyone else to revert before the page was locked. Thanks for any help or guidance you can give. Novaseminary (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- As a long-time editor, Novaseminary is well aware that under WP:BLPREMOVE, the removal of contentious material does not constitute a 3RR violation. That is all I have done. But Novaseminary's repeated insistence on undoing those removals does constitute 3RR. He even admitted he was in violation on the article's talk page. So this editor knows better, but he is pushing a long-standing and continuing agenda opposing this BLP. Currently he actually contends that obscure & contentious material, published during that individual's high school years, is actually relevant for inclusion 20 years later in an article that focuses exclusively on their professional life! That really is Novaseminary's argument! As for his request for either partial block or revert, contrary to his claim there is no consensus on any prior version. One editor has already objected to inclusion of the irrelevant & contentious material and one has not. That's hardly a consensus. It is also revealing that Novaseminary is so anxious to reinsert the contentious material during this block - thereby preventing any objection during that period. Instead, just maintain the block, until more editors have a chance to review the material and the talk page. And can weigh in on the proper use of WP policies. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A9D1:44D3:A2AB:F696 (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute. I suggest contacting the BLP noticeboard for their opinion on whether this sourced matierial is or isn't BLP compliant. GedUK 11:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Per your suggestion, this dispute has been moved to the BLP noticeboard where it still remains unresolved. So please extend page protection of Douglas Tait (stuntman), which is scheduled to expire tomorrow, until the BLP issues are resolved. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3D41:47E5:EC56:15A5 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why would page protection be extended? Is the IP planning to edit war? I won't (ever) violate 3RR, as I mentioned on talk before the IP reverted me a fourth time over a content dispute. It seems the IP would like to be further rewarded for violating 3RR by continued lock-in of its version. Novaseminary (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Novaseminary's response itself explains why page protection needs to be extended. He just said that he was reverted "a fourth time". But how was that possible if he wasn't edit warring 4 times in the first place? So four times, by his own admission, he restored contentious material that was removed per WP:BLPREMOVE, which not only states that contentious material must be removed "immediately", but that the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. This editor has been told this several times, but instead chooses to resort to WP:ICANTHEARYOU and is now attempting to game the system by forum shopping first to the BLP Noticeboard and now to RFC. So with every indication that his behavior will continue once the page protection is lifted, until this is resolved, the page needs to remain protected. Thank you. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'll watch the article and protect if necessary. I'm hopeful that as you're talking on here and various other places (and it should never have left BLPN) the article will remain stable without protection. GedUK 12:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- As predicted, Novaseminary has resumed edit warring on Douglas Tait (stuntman) again. Reinserting the same contentious material disallowed by WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NPF. Per BLPREMOVE, I have "immediately" removed them. I have also asked the editor to stop edit warring and let the RFC that he initiated, run it's course. But he refused. Please page protect again, making sure not to reward him by protecting his reverts, and block him for edit warring. Thank you. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'll watch the article and protect if necessary. I'm hopeful that as you're talking on here and various other places (and it should never have left BLPN) the article will remain stable without protection. GedUK 12:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Novaseminary's response itself explains why page protection needs to be extended. He just said that he was reverted "a fourth time". But how was that possible if he wasn't edit warring 4 times in the first place? So four times, by his own admission, he restored contentious material that was removed per WP:BLPREMOVE, which not only states that contentious material must be removed "immediately", but that the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. This editor has been told this several times, but instead chooses to resort to WP:ICANTHEARYOU and is now attempting to game the system by forum shopping first to the BLP Noticeboard and now to RFC. So with every indication that his behavior will continue once the page protection is lifted, until this is resolved, the page needs to remain protected. Thank you. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why would page protection be extended? Is the IP planning to edit war? I won't (ever) violate 3RR, as I mentioned on talk before the IP reverted me a fourth time over a content dispute. It seems the IP would like to be further rewarded for violating 3RR by continued lock-in of its version. Novaseminary (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Per your suggestion, this dispute has been moved to the BLP noticeboard where it still remains unresolved. So please extend page protection of Douglas Tait (stuntman), which is scheduled to expire tomorrow, until the BLP issues are resolved. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3D41:47E5:EC56:15A5 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute. I suggest contacting the BLP noticeboard for their opinion on whether this sourced matierial is or isn't BLP compliant. GedUK 11:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Page Protection
Can you take another look at the request for page protection for Christian science. The IPs keep inserting original research and synthesis into the article, despite being asked not to numerous times on the talk pages. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Seems to have calmed down. GedUK 12:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Disneyland page protection
Disneyland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I see that a few days ago that you fully protected the Disneyland article, even after another admin declined the protection. You did so, leaving in serious breaches of original research and synthesis. I will remind you that WP:OR is one of the three core content "policies" on Misplaced Pages, and there should be no leeway in them. Unfortunately, I don't think that you looked very deeply into what the other user, possibly and sock puppet, was adding to the article. Now that "original research" is starting to show up in internet search results, which leads to false and misleading information being distributed across the net and unfortunately attributed to Misplaced Pages. I don't think you did your homework on this one. Full protection should only be used as a last resort and you seem to have misused the tools. Hopefully you will review your own action before I'm forced to ask for an Admin review.--JOJ 13:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, it wasn't after another admin declined it, but rather at the same time. Whilst he was decling it I was studying the page history (as he did). A two year slow rolling edit war does to my mind pretty much require full protection as a last resort as clearly it's not been resolved. I couldn't see a clear consensus about what the date should be, and from what I could see there was certainly a lack of clarity in the sources, and their reliability. I'm happy with my judgement on this, but certainly feel free to have another admin review it; I've no problem with that.
- What you'll probably find more effective though is trying some of the various dispute resolution options open to you to get a wider view on the argument, as at the moment it's you and another editor. GedUK 11:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you have no problem with editors violating WP:OR, which is a core content policy? Did you review the edit? Or the alleged "sources"?--JOJ 02:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course I have a problem with that. The fundamental issue here should not be decided by one admin on his talk page. As I've said, you'd be better served trying to reach a consensus on the core issue, otherwise the edit war will simply start again, and it'll need to be protected again. GedUK 11:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well take a good look at the edit in question. It's WP:OR and you are insuring that it is currently left in. And you can't discuss anything with a tendentious editor who only shows up every 6 months or so and tries to add his version of original research, won't discuss on the talk page, and may possibly be a sock. I think you are taking the wrong road here and instead of attempting to fix the problem you are standing by a poor decision.--JOJ 13:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's plenty of other editors who you can engage with to form consensus. There's plenty of alternative routes, RFC and 3O are probably the most relevant. If you think they're a sock report them to SPI. If that turns out to be accurate then they can be blocked, and the protection would be no longer necessary. As it is, it's 2 users disagreeing, and it should be a community consensus that agrees the way forward, not just an admin on their talk page. GedUK 12:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well take a good look at the edit in question. It's WP:OR and you are insuring that it is currently left in. And you can't discuss anything with a tendentious editor who only shows up every 6 months or so and tries to add his version of original research, won't discuss on the talk page, and may possibly be a sock. I think you are taking the wrong road here and instead of attempting to fix the problem you are standing by a poor decision.--JOJ 13:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course I have a problem with that. The fundamental issue here should not be decided by one admin on his talk page. As I've said, you'd be better served trying to reach a consensus on the core issue, otherwise the edit war will simply start again, and it'll need to be protected again. GedUK 11:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you have no problem with editors violating WP:OR, which is a core content policy? Did you review the edit? Or the alleged "sources"?--JOJ 02:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 September 2012
- In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention
- Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Misplaced Pages participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012
- WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011
- News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal
- Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times
- Featured content: Dead as...
- Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more
Justice and Development Party (Turkey)
You blocked this site. The block is gone, the content-removal by an ip is going on...--Chauahuasachca (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK 11:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)