Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:23, 9 August 2008

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strange IP address editing

Please revisit Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Leedryburgh, Leedryburgh (talk · contribs) and Talk:Signaling System 7. Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict at User talk:41.232.182.119:

Ed I was in the process of leaving a block notice at the same time you left the warning.

Normally I'm very slow to block, but given the history of this edit war and the timeline of the last 24 hours' events, it was clear that this IP belonged to one of the participants. It seemed easier to just block that IP than to try to figure out who was using it. The IPs that abused recently and those in the past were Austrian and Egyptian; one of the participants is in Scotland. Both participants are experts on the public switched telephone network and IP networking (one wrote a 700-page book for Cisco), so I figure either party is perfectly capable of somehow conjuring up a sock-IP wherever they want. If this continues with other IPs, then I'm thinking of semi-protecting these articles for a while.

I could blacklist the domain, but based on my experience with WikiProject Spam, I figure there's a chance that it's being Joe jobbed.

If you've got better ideas, I'm very receptive. The whole thing reminds me of an old Star Trek episode I saw years ago, except I'm no Captain Kirk. --A. B. 14:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely support your action. It sounds to me that the regular editors who've been following this case have been more than patient. We expect that a word to the wise will be sufficient; if it takes ten thousand words, there is less reason to be sympathetic. Regarding a joe job, User:Leedryburgh had the chance to dissociate himself from the IP's action but has not chosen to so far. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What to do after "no consensus" closure

Re the discussion about renaming Circumcision: Thank you very much for closing this, and I'm sorry to take up your time with a further related issue. I'm wondering whether it was wrong of me to tell Garycompugeek not to bring up again the subject of renaming the page (in response to his comment here). My reasoning was that since the discussion had been closed, we shouldn't waste editors' time re-opening the discussion unless there's new information or new arguments. However, Blackworm seems to think that since it was closed as "no consensus", that discussion should continue until a consensus is found (or something like that). I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there was a majority *against* moving the page, we should expect to see at least some changes of position in previous voters or new participants favoring the move. It is less than a month since the previous debate. I wonder if anyone who opposed the move in June has changed their mind. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I think that answers my question. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Test of substituting the 'resolved' template

. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Even through I feel it rapes me, I did do a semi-self-revert, by placing the tag on the page, but where it normally goes, below the Reference section, not up high, per precedent with similar articles with similar formatting style.--Bedford 06:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am officially raped, and now the disruptive presence that is Doncram is encouraged to continue his childish ways. It has been reverted to the vandalized version. --Bedford 06:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

note

I emailed you with an explanation of my recent posting. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be in a dispute with the other user. Obviously you can take it to WP:WQA if you wish. For purposes of WP:COIN, my interest would be in improving the Cherry Wilder article, which seems not too bad at present. Just needs a couple more sources. When people reveal their COI, we tend to be more tolerant, so long as they don't go overboard. For example, I wouldn't complain about this edit. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Also, the other thing was the promotion of the book on his user page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance...

would appreciate your input on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_Probation proposal, so it can be enacted or dismissed soon. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding those edit wars

My sincere apologies for my horrible mistake of which I now regret. I should have known that there would be no use in edit warring with Ausonia, and I doubt that I can come to an agreement with her by myself.

Please try to understand that my only aim is to go by the book (ie: reach a consensus) and not to fight with those of whom I might occasionally disagree with. ~ Troy (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I have decided not to continue editing those related articles until a resolution is reached (which, again, is something that I highly doubt for the foreseeable future). ~ Troy (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:3RR

Hmm. did you see the request for review on the first case among the three? I think that is a clear violation of 3RR. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for Stifle asking if he wants to change his closure. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, also can you also take a look at WP:ANI#Comfort women because of this tendentious J-K warring issue filed by Fut.Perf.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Pabopa

Hello Stifle. I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. After the IP was blocked at 18:26 on July 25, Pabopa created his account and continued warring on the same material. Since Pabopa has made three reverts on each of three different articles within 24 hours, and the total of the reverts is greater if the IP is included, I think he is inviting a block. Then if he *is* really the IP, that is block evasion as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The offence is stale at this point (the purpose of a 3RR block is to prevent further edit warring, and Pabopa isn't editing there any more). However, a few other people are still edit warring so I've protected Taekwondo. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. i appreciate your effort for admin. Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera . exactly same behaviot of Pabopa

210.231.12.98 and 210.231.14.222. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa, too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.Manacpowers (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for User:Stifle pointing to the 2channel stuff. If this campaign truly exists, some of the affected articles may be reported at 3RR in the future. It might be helpful, if you know of some articles that you believe have been targeted by 2channel, you could make a list of them. Possibly they are already named somewhere at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update Pabopa is a sockpuppeter confirmed by checkuser. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa. They waste my time a lot. The bigger problem is unrevealed 2channel meat/sockpuppetry within Wikipedai. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR on John Lydon page

Thanks very much for your swift attention to this case. I hope this will calm the waters surrounding the disputes on this issue. Malljaja (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho

Hi Ed. Please have a look at the updates re GreenEcho's case. Regards. -- FayssalF - 19:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nanshu

Hello, Ed Johnston. I come to seek your opinion on Nanshu (talk · contribs)'s behaviors since you read my thread and concern about meatpuppetings and disruptions by 2channel. I repasted it to AN (I should've done it to ANI, but did inadvertently to AN). My writing tends to be very lengthy, so that's why the post did not get much attention so the problems regarding him and 2channel still continue. In order to comply with his request for implement on the NPOV disputed Yeongeunmun Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I did it with two reliable Korean sources regardless of his disruptive false accusation like "useless hard worker", "disruptive editor". However, as reverting the article, he not only removed the two valid sources and contents, but also called me of doing "vandalism again" as his habit. This is very offensive personal attacks, but also I could not work with this disruptive editor. He blatantly disregards Misplaced Pages's core policy like WP:Consensus and No personal attack. You can see our disputes at Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. He does not also admit his personal attacks against me. The problem is that he seems to have continued this kind of behaviors ever since he joined Misplaced Pages. After the ANI thread was manually archived, he reappears again to attack me. Could you direct him to stop his bad attitude? and If you have an opinion on the bigger picture of 2channel, I would provide more information on it. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Block of Skyring

Noting you blocked Skyring for 12 hours for 3RR violation, since your rationale says there is no BLP issue can you also close the Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Howard discussion. Can it include a detailed rationale clarifying why the information isnt a BLP violation. Gnangarra 05:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note to the BLP/N thread??. If anyone wants to discuss further whether this kind of disputed material falls under the BLP exception to 3RR, they are welcome to continue the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I just wanted it clear at that discussion that you found the 3RR not a BLP issue hence the block, as such the whole discussion isnt BLP but rather editorial. Gnangarra 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you find my answer at BLPN to be a response. It's not credible that *believing* something is a BLP violation grants an editor immunity from 3RR enforcement. It has to actually *be* a BLP violation by the usual community definition, the thing that admins have to judge all the time whenever they take BLP-related actions, e.g. when protecting articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I think its a blp undue weight rather than blp pov issue, hence no need repetitive removal. Your comment was all I wanted for the BLP notice to show that you had considered the BLP in your blocking of skyring. Gnangarra 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Aviousours76

Hello Ed--thanks to you, Malljaja and the other editors with the John Lydon issues--I am enjoying to learn the wiki way even when it is painful at times....I thought I would point out that it appears that the blocked user AVIOUSOURS76 continues to edit (from one of his/her separate static ip addresses) although the week has not expired (see below).....I was actually reading Malljaja's documentation to learn about how the intracacies of the block etc. works and saw the edit below.....it doesn't sppear to be controversial--just sneaky....I don't know maybe no big deal-but fyi

21:44, 1 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Dusty Springfield‎ (Undid revision 229284076 by 6afraidof7 (talk)nothing about songwriting/producing in the source) (top) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keynote1 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Koov

Hi there, I noticed that you were active on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Koov and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (2nd) and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (3rd). Looking at Template:Foreign relations of Russia it seems he is back under the username Fsbi and a range of IPs. He is intent on using the same modus operandi as Koov, but I am unable to work out how to start Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (4th); this problem is now getting way out of hand, with his POV edits and generally being disruptive. Are you able to help out with this? Thanks, --Россавиа 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fsbi's edit-warring to remove Kosovo from Template:Foreign relations of Russia is a Koov trademark. I have indefinitely blocked Fsbi as a sock of Koov. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse Return

Have a look at Bendiksen63, ITALONY and IP 24.20.169.90... Pretty obvious who it is... especially as the two registered users use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source, which by "chance" was a favourite source for Generalmesse. ITALONY and the IP are also pretty obviously the same person: ITALONY edit and the IP addition. BTW: the source he uses is a British Egyptian Philately societies homepage and Edmund Hall (the writer of the material used as a source) an collector of Egyptian stamps! not a historian qualified in any way to judge the WWII events of North Africa... My question is: what do we do??? --noclador (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

So you aren't going to do anything about another user's violation of the three revert rule? Or does it only apply to those using IP address. To hell with this place. You wiki Nazis are welcome to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.215.77 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Gennarous

Do you mind if I email you? It's not a secret, per se, but it would be pushing some WP:BEANS up the old nostrils if a sockpuppeteer happened to notice it. Hersfold 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

re: tucker max article. mcjeff refuses to post documented criticism.

this is part of what mcjeffs conversation with me.

I am new at this but mcjeff will not engage in a discussion on how to revise the article to meet "his" standards. He openly admits that he works for Tucker Max and then refuses to post any sourced comments that are critical of his employer. I am guilty of being new at this so I do need help to document statements from Tucker's own website, new york times, gawker, fox news etc.

could you help me? thanks Aharon42 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ihave read the other discussions that you have had with other editors and mediators. All seem to concur that the ACLU would differ on your approach to the redacting of the Max Tucker article. Please do not wrap your white-washing of Tucker in obfusction. We both know that you are aware of Fox News and their statements. It is not coincidence that the only statements that have made it into tuckers article are all neutral or postiive. I will start by just quoting tucker himself from his fox news, opie, and website.

For instance..

Tucker Max has made several controversial statements and described marginal behavior.... then we can include his own statements from the news shows and his website. .. If you did this I would be satisfied. Aharon42 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:McJeff"

Aharon42

Thanks for dealing with that so quickly, but he has just posted an extremely rude response to my welcome message on his talkpage, could you take a look at it? Chafford (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)