Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:29, 7 August 2012

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi Ed

I stumbled across an IP edit and on the article's talk page, it appears to be using multiple anonymous confirmed proxies according to 'Geolocate', what is the policy on wikipedia for such matters, because my initial impression is that it seems to be a grey area. Sheodred (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears that another admin already answered this. If you are not satisfied you could make a report at Misplaced Pages:OP#Reporting and see what they say. As a further step a normal proxy check could be run, even though there is already a proxy tag. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RogerThatOne72

Mentioned you and your SPI on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can you take a look at the article please? Gatoclass and I are involved in this, and it's been going on for two years including the previous sock and you're probably the only one aware of the history. Also, the ANI thread archived with no action. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the links:

• Fatehji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RogerThatOne72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The archived 2012 ANI is now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#RogerThatOne72.
• The previous 2010 ANI is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive596#Kundalini yoga - User:Fatehji.
• The sock report is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Fatehji/Archive.

• What action do you think is needed? To me, a long-term block is worth considering but we should persuade at least one other admin who has not edited the Kundalini yoga article that such a thing is justified. Either that, or open a thread at a place like WP:NPOV/N or WP:FT/N. You might also consider WP:RS/N for the inappropriate use of the text of a bill in the US Congress as a reliable source on the nature of Yogi Bhajan's movement. The claimed source is here. I had assumed that WP:COI/N had already been tried but it seems that it has not. The sock report alone is not enough for a block because the old accounts are inactive. EdJohnston (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it has been to NPOV/N and ECCN already (although no one participated in either threads) , as RogerThatOne72 had posted there. A peripheral discussion at FT/N and a different COI/N report related to Yogi Bhajan . Unfortunately, except for the initial ANI report on the Fatehji account which had three uninvolved editors supporting a topic ban, none of the others have any response, so I'm not sure taking this topic to a noticeboard is of much help any longer. I can probably ask a couple of other admins who work in the Fringe/RS area to take a look (Dougweller comes to mind), do you think that would be a workable option? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Postings at ANI sometimes don't get any response positive or negative. I think trying to persuade one other admin would be useful. If you have the time to do so, making a better summary of the whole case would be useful. Since there really aren't reliable sources showing high importance for Yogi Bhajan in the history of Kundalini yoga, the changes made by RogerThatOne72 are usually based on weak or improper sources. Evidence about Roger's use of sources and his article edits might be collected and arranged by someone who had the patience. This would be a better foundation for future requests for sanctions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it really too late to file a sock report? An IP was duplicating Roger's edits only two weeks ago, and Affinity909 was doing the same in March. Seems to me if these got a match that should be grounds enough for action. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is good information. Why not reopen the SPI linked above and add your new data. Ping me if you do so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that. It will have to wait until tomorrow though since I'm about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Gatoclass, let me know if you need any assistance on this (you're probably closer to reality on the KY segment of the Yogi Bhajan set). Also, I'm not entirely sure that the 131 IP is linked, as the previous one that was confirmed was quite far away (it's on the SPI). However, the 192 and 74 IPs appear to be close by. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Historylover4

• Historylover4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. User:Historylover4 has been misrepresenting a source at Israelites (and edit-warring over it). You can read details at Talk:Israelites#DNA evidence and User talk:Historylover4#Misrepresentation of sources.

Short of going to AE, is there any means of dealing with an editor engaging in this sort of behavior? According to User:No More Mr Nice Guy, it has been going on at other articles as well, including Demographic history of Jerusalem and The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering about a topic ban given his pov editing. Dougweller (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a userlinks template above for ease of reference, and will leave a notice for the editor. The discussion here on my talk may be due to my June 27 block of Historylover4 per a discussion at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because of that block I thought you might be familiar with Historylover4's edit history. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 16:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I simply quoted the PNAS source in full, it is clear Zionist propagandists who are liars claiming I'm supposedly "misrepresenting" something by simply QUOTING the WHOLE TEXT! "The fixation index, FST, calculated concurrently to the PCA, confirms that there is a closer relationship between the AJ and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the AJ and Middle Eastern populations (Fig. S2B). This finding can be visualized with a phylogenetic tree built using the FST data (Fig. S2C), showing that the AJ population branches with the Europeans and not Middle Easterners. Two recent studies performing PCA and population clustering with high-density SNP genotyping from many Jewish Diaspora populations, both showed that of the Jewish populations, the Ashkenazi consistently cluster closest to Europeans (13, 25). Genetic distances calculated by both groups also show that the Ashkenazi are more closely related to some host Europeans than to the ancestral Levant (13, 25). Although the proximity of the AJ and Italian populations could be explained by their admixture prior to the Ashkenazi settlement in Central Europe (13), it should be noted that different demographic models may potentially yield similar principal component projections (33); thus, it is also consistent that the projection of the AJ populations is primarily the outcome of admixture with Central and Eastern European hosts that coincidentally shift them closer to Italians along principle component axes relative to Middle Easterners. Taken as a whole, our results, along with those from previous studies, support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the AJ population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans. Our data further imply that modern Ashkenazi Jews are perhaps even more similar with Europeans than Middle Easterners."

As for the other charges, I removed clear Zionist propaganda from completely obscure Zionist rags like "shofar"!, that are in complete contradiction to published academia.Historylover4 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the above pretty much shows all you need to see about this editor.

By the way, he just made his 4th edit in 24 hours (putting back the rejected information) on Israelite. The second edit might not be a revert but it's still obvious edit warring.

Also, Shofar is published by Purdue University Press. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. That's clearly a personal attack on me, as I'm the one who said he was misrepresenting the paper by not using " Taken as a whole, our results, along with those from previous studies, support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the AJ population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans. Our data further imply that modern Ashkenazi Jews are perhaps even more similar with Europeans than Middle Easterners." The quote above is by the way too long and all but the bit I just quoted has been removed as not within fair use. And it is really unnecessary, as IMHO the quote starting "Taken as a whole" is their summing up.

He's attacked other editors on other article talk pages, blocked 4 times for editing warring (the last time only 4 days ago), and his talk page makes fascinating reading. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since 27 July Historylover4 is not continuing to revert at Israelites or at Demographic history of Jerusalem. Regarding Israelites, I am not sure that the admins at WP:AE would have the patience to examine the DNA arguments carefully. The population graph made by User:Zero0000 at Talk:Demographic history of Jerusalem#historylover's recent edits would be easier for admins to understand. I think Historylover4's revert of that article is very hard to justify as respecting the consensus. The complaint above is essentially that Historylover4 is a 'high volume bad editor' of I/P articles. If that's really the case, we should be able to tell if we wait a week or two whether his continuing behavior really justifies a ban from I/P articles. You can (of course) go to AE without waiting any longer but if you do so a more tightly written complaint is needed, in my opinion. For reference, the three AN3 complaints that led to blocks of Historylover4 are here. It's possible that if someone carefully reviewed the last 30 days, including all the I/P articles he worked on, they might be able to collect enough data to justify a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right about AE, for the moment at least. I know I have enough on my plate right now, but I'll keep an eye on things. Thanks for the diffs. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I'll also try to keep an eye on Historylover4's edits. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Can you take a look?

It appears two editors are in dispute at the Greater Iran article. Care to take a look? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Another admin has semiprotected Greater Iran. I assume this takes care of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I/P tag

Hello,

Can you take a look at the article One minute of silence and whether it merits the I/P Arbitration 1RR tag? The article does deal with Israelis, Palestinians, and concerns a terrorist attack perpetrated by Palestinians against Israelis.

Also, would it be possible to change the name to "One Minute of Silence," as most articles I've seen are capitalized in this way?

Thanks. --Activism1234 00:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, this article 2012 Burgas bus bombing has the I/P 1RR tag twice, and a protection tag twice. I think it should only have one of each. Thanks. --Activism1234 13:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Burgas bus bombing article is tagged both for move protection and semiprotection. This is not a problem. Regarding the notices on the talk page, what you call the duplication is actually the wording of the current {{ARBPIA}} template. I am trying to find out why the language is duplicated, and will let you know. As to the capitalization in One minute of silence, try to find how the campaign is spelled by the organizers of the campaign. The topic of the article easily justifies it being under the ARBPIA 1RR, in my opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm interesting, didn't know that about the tags. OK thanks. Based on their Change.org petition, it appears to be capitalized (but someone could argue they're just capitalizing all the major words, like in any title). I actually just made it capitalized because another editor said he was confused when he saw the link in another article, thinking it was to an article about minutes of silence in general, and thus it'd be better to capitalize to show it's the campaign. If a bunch of editors feel that it should be called something like "One minute of silence 2012 campaign," I'd be willing to do that. For now, I think I'll leave it and then see how others feel. I don't have any strong feelings on this, as long as the title isn't too wordy or anything. Thanks for your help again. --Activism1234 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. At my suggestion Ebe123 has undone what seemed to be a duplication. The main use of this template is to label articles subject to the 1RR restriction. My concern was the implication that the first 1RR violation would not be enforced if the editor was new to the article. What I found to be troublesome was "Those editors who violate the ruling, but are unaware of it, will be informed of the details before any sanctions are invoked." That wording has now been removed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. Awesome. --Activism1234 03:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Block didn't take?

• 220.233.29.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, I'm confused by the edits here which seemed to go on in article space anyway despite there being a clear block in the log. Am I missing something? Btw, this is relevant to this case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The block expired on 29 July at 2011-07-29T18:21:22. It looks to me that a new long-term block for disruption is justified, whether or not this IP is confirmed to be a sock. He has reverted the same passage from the lead of Race and intelligence about seven times since mid-July. This reverting continued after his latest block expired. I agree with you that it is strange he was able to edit on 28 July. Wrong year, see below. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How long term? :) That is what I was debating over. I'm inclined to one week for disruption: continuing the same behavior as before that got them blocked in the first place.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not ask Beeblebrox to comment on the Giornorosso SPI. He issued the previous block for 'block evasion'. If the guy is actually a sock, a really-long-term block would be justified. You could also ask User:Nuclear Warfare since he blocked Thonos as a sock of Giornorosso. It ought to be easy to catch R&I socks since their interests are so predictable. By the way, congrats on your request for adminship! EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Took me a minute to dig through this and recall the case. It pretty obviously is the same user, edits to the race and intelligence article and its talk page go back two years, they seem to revisit the subject each July for some reason. Previous block was based on them continuing an edit war started by Thonos. I think it is pretty likely they are one in the same but even if they aren't the long term edit warring is enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

B., thanks for sorting this out. Meanwhile, the mystery of the 28 July 2012 edit is solved because the previous block was in 2011 not 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me and glad the mystery was solved. Thank you both.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI

HammerFilmFan was previously notified of the 3RR report at 23:59, 30 July 2012, but he deleted it from his talk page at 00:01, 31 July 2012. In fact, he has deleted every message I've ever sent him, even ones telling him I agree with him. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric Mit 1992

In relation to User_talk:Eric_mit_1992#You are edit warring on a grand scale, note that prior to the edit warring block I had started a thread at AN about the editor and his wikilawyering on the talk page: Misplaced Pages:AN#Eric_mit_1992_Blacklight_Power. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a uw-sanctions warning for Eric mit 1992 under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed Kosiski

Hi Ed, You placed a block on this page page. Could you please revert to this page ? Following what I believe to be the process - I did not revert the deletion prior to reporting. So, now the page is protected with the other editor's (the one that resumed the edit war) edits. Thanks 174.70.63.4 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You can still post at Talk:Ed Kosiski. Why not try to get consensus for that version? You could also leave messages for other registered editors who have worked on the article and draw attention to your request. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. 174.70.63.4 (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Also replied in more detail at ANEW. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Troubles AE

Hi there. I was impressed (from my position as March the guilty bastard in, Sergeant-Major defendant) with your comments on the 1RR complaint brought against me by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. He has now raised yet another Troubles-related 1RR, albeit on an article about islamist terrorism in London, and I think that with your existing knowledge of the situation you would be a valuable contributor to this case. Thanks. --FergusM1970 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)