| Revision as of 01:05, 11 November 2012 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,229 edits →Blacklight Power: Equal← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:18, 11 November 2012 edit undoJohn Cline (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors64,922 edits NotificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
| :::Your version of the URL (as printed above) has extra characters at the end of 'Australian Christian Lobby': {{green|%E2%80%8E}}. Remove those and it should work, perhaps even in SeaMonkey. There is about an Opera bug that does this, but there's no obvious reason for you to be running into that. ] (]) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | :::Your version of the URL (as printed above) has extra characters at the end of 'Australian Christian Lobby': {{green|%E2%80%8E}}. Remove those and it should work, perhaps even in SeaMonkey. There is about an Opera bug that does this, but there's no obvious reason for you to be running into that. ] (]) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Aha. It's a little weird, because it's been several weeks since I last upgraded SeaMonkey, and it hasn't messed with any other URLs in the meantime. Oh well, the Opera guy did say it didn't happen to him all the time either. Anyway, now I know what to look for. Thank you for taking the trouble to check it out. ] | ] 16:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC). | ::::Aha. It's a little weird, because it's been several weeks since I last upgraded SeaMonkey, and it hasn't messed with any other URLs in the meantime. Oh well, the Opera guy did say it didn't happen to him all the time either. Anyway, now I know what to look for. Thank you for taking the trouble to check it out. ] | ] 16:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC). | ||
| ==A request for clarification has been filed== | |||
| And you have been mentioned as an involved party. Please review the request and consider assisting to clarify the matter before the committee. Thank you, ] (]) 06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:18, 11 November 2012
|
Help needed
Hi, Ed. Please, just one more note here. I think that blocks and bans are not necessary now, but just tell him what are POV template actually used for, or something similar... At least we are making progress, this article is the last one in dispute between those two... --WhiteWriter 18:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red
Removed all the warnings and notices - and called one warning required by policy "disingenuous". So he was fully and porperly warned and given a full shot at self-reverting. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Harassment of one editor by socks
Thank you for helping out there. This happens every week or so now; what do you recommend I do? Obviously the users are all blocked so an SPI won't result in them being more blocked, but would a checkuser there enable any kind of rangeblock that would forestall further harassment? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the benefit of any other readers of this page, here is the problem:
| Recent vandalism-only accounts |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Stream of vandalism-only accounts being created. See user creation log, search for 'Lesbianism'.
These four accounts were created over a period of one minute. |
- If this starts up again, it is possible to ask a checkuser to block the underlying IP from which the accounts were being created. This particular vandal may have got bored, so I didn't pursue the matter any further. I no longer know any checkusers who are often around. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- "This particular vandal" is, I would also assume, the person behind any or all of:
- Homosexuality is abnormal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Homosexuality is a perversion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- God Condemns Homosexuality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Allah Condemns Homosexuality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- and others whose name I cannot remember. (Although the names are typically the same sort of thing, they are frequently oversighted so it's impossible for me to find them; see eg. the one that Bsadowski blocked at the bottom of this log which I thanked him or her for, and the one that followed me here and here that was blocked by Acroterion.) They've been around for at least two years (and, I see, harassed other users before harassing me), so clearly they do not just get bored and go away. Should I request help from an oversighter in compiling a list for checkuser?
- Also, I was incorrect about every week or so; I guess it just feels more frequent when I don't edit as much as I used to. It looks like it's more every two to three weeks. (I also don't know if this person is the same as some of the other stalker accounts I've had, like Ywreuv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but maybe a checkuser would find that out.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- If this is a long-term problem then by all means open an SPI, or add this information to an existing report. The active checkuser clerks are listed at Misplaced Pages:SPI/Clerks#Active_clerks and one of them might be able to tell you who this is likely to be. I would suggest asking Dennis Brown. Though Bsadowski1 helped out last time around, he is not listed as active. If any of the harassment has also come from IPs, the addresses might help to narrow it down. EdJohnston (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now it seems other admins have looked into this. The main SPI case is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/God Condemns Homosexuality. Others seem to have been placing sock tags on the user pages of these accounts. So long as tags are placed it may be unnecessary to reopen the sock case. If more accounts with names like this show up, you could file at WP:AIV and mention the sock case or find an admin who is online. After an account is blocked, its user page should be tagged with {{blockedsock|God Condemns Homosexuality}}. So long as the sock names don't mention you personally, I think it best not to oversight the account names, since that makes it harder to track the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- If this is a long-term problem then by all means open an SPI, or add this information to an existing report. The active checkuser clerks are listed at Misplaced Pages:SPI/Clerks#Active_clerks and one of them might be able to tell you who this is likely to be. I would suggest asking Dennis Brown. Though Bsadowski1 helped out last time around, he is not listed as active. If any of the harassment has also come from IPs, the addresses might help to narrow it down. EdJohnston (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- "This particular vandal" is, I would also assume, the person behind any or all of:
Imalbornoz
| Spillover from a new outbreak of the GIbraltar dispute following a lifting of the original restriction at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
See , Imalbornoz has returned and immediately prefaced his remarks with reference to past disputes. Look I've put this behind me, all I wish to do is publish my articles and leave. Yet it seems both Imalbornoz and Ecemaml after months of inactivity return the momemnt I start editing. It is worth noting that Ecemaml has now been banned indefinitely from es.wikipedia for effectively bullying another editor. They're raising irrelevant and tangential issues and it seems the only reason is because I've published an article with a DYK. It seems also clear this is being co-ordinated off-wiki, come on this can't be a co-incidence that Imalbornoz shows up on a completely new article after not editing for months. I have already had to put up with years of bullying from these guys, yes it came to a head and I responded by becoming uncivil. I really don't need to have this start all over again as they effectively got away with it last time. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Ed, No I'm not saying that at all. The goal posts have been moving, my comment reflects the source. The initial claim made was that the source didn't say that, it does verbatim, now they're making a semantic comment about transport links including the Tangiers ferry. Dodds, the source, is quite correct, to get anywhere from Gibraltar you had to fly to London and from there to onward destinations. You couldn't get anywhere from Tangiers other than a ferry to Spain. Its a nitpicking semantic argument, does that reflect a spirit of co-operation. He also refer to reverts, please look at those. As raised here WP:ELN#Link to a BBC History article hosted in an academic site a link to a copy of an article from BBC History magazine that appears to be a clear copyright violation. I have a DYK nomination at the moment and a copyvio is a red flag. He also several times claimed the same source didn't support the comment in the article, when it does verbatim, which you can verify for yourself if you follow the link. I don't wish to get involved in a protracted discussion on your talk page but would ask you to note that I've been followed here. And he is looking at my activity but also claiming that he is ignoring me. If he wishes to avoid a confrontation, why would he weigh prefaced with a remark referring to past disputes and, contrary to WP:CIVIL, by referring to past conduct that hasn't been repeated. Again I put this behind me long ago but it seems clear from the comments above that they wish to continue with the same dispute, whilst continuing to try and paint me as the aggressive party, why else would someone repeatedly refer to an episode of from 3 years ago for which I've repeatedly apologised and there has been no repeat. I raised this at WP:AE, why are they allowed to get away with it? You refer to a spirit of co-operation, please tell me how that is fostered by remarks about past conduct, which you and he knows I am sensitive about? And why is he allowed to get away with doing so repeatedly. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Topic banned reviewer
I think that indefinite (?) ban you imposed on me is unjustified. I responded to invitation to review the article and discovered its numerous flaws. I helped resolving most of them trough 27 consensuses achieved with other editors. That way I significantly improved the quality of the article. It was not easy because of the very persistent editing of group of editors who initially opposed almost every single proposal I made. Therefore I had to persistently provide numerous sources and to carefully explain my position more than once before reaching (27) consensuses with them. There is nothing wrong with persistence (their or mine) as long as wikipedia policies are respected. This article would not have been improved without persistence of both parties (in Cross case they were persistent much more than me, since their very first edit on wikipedia (diff) and many other discussions which were held before I began my review).
Will you please be so kind to:
- allow me to continue improving the quality of this article under condition that the issue of the weight of Cross assertion in comparison to "some obscure Serbian or Montengrin award" (diff) is discussed only at mediation, not on article's talkpage?
- consider replacing a one-year freeze to move proposals at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia with six-month bans to participate in move discussions of that article imposed on all editors who used the "name issue" of this article to struggle for their position in another "statehood" dispute, using statehood arguments and ethnicity of other editors to prevent renaming existing (wrong) title. A one-year freeze to move proposals is better than nothing, and I supported it, but I do believe it is better to deal with real problems (i.e. conduct of couple of editors) instead of dealing with the consequences (freezing wrong title for a year) and having the same problem a year after. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't find your argument persuasive. Disputes that are connected with Serbia occasionally lead to endless discussions. In these cases, it may appear that some editors are serving their national loyalties rather than the best interests of the encyclopedia. That is the type of problem which led to the original filing of the WP:ARBMAC2 arbitration case. It was a naming dispute about Macedonia where a group of editors aligned with one country were voting in a consistent way. Arbcom stated:
- EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)"Protracted naming disputes are not a highly productive form of encyclopedia building and should be avoided if at all possible. Effort spent on actually improving articles as opposed to engaging in disputes over their names is highly encouraged."
- I understand your position at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and actually support it. It is better to deal with consequences of someones disruption than not to deal with it. Still, I believe that it would be better to deal with the real problems not with the consequences. The real problem is editing pattern of the small group of editors who, based on national loyalties and ethnicity of other editors, misuse the name issue of this article to struggle for their position in another "statehood" dispute. It is good that one of them is banned (I supported his sanctions) but allowing the other members of this group to continue with their disruption was mistake.
- I still expect your answer on my question related to my topic ban. My editing about the Cross issue was maybe persistent, but it was necessary because of the editing of the other party which was not only persistent but non-neutral and disruptive too.
- I don't find your argument persuasive. Disputes that are connected with Serbia occasionally lead to endless discussions. In these cases, it may appear that some editors are serving their national loyalties rather than the best interests of the encyclopedia. That is the type of problem which led to the original filing of the WP:ARBMAC2 arbitration case. It was a naming dispute about Macedonia where a group of editors aligned with one country were voting in a consistent way. Arbcom stated:
| Explanation about persistent, non-neutral and disruptive editing of other party related to the Cross issue |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- If you disagree with your own sanction you can follow the appeal process. There is no way to appeal someone else *not* being sanctioned. When you refer to a small group of editors I am not sure who you mean. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- During this discussion I already explained who are three most active members of this small group who wrote more than 2,000 comments at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (link). Only one of those three editors who (based on national loyalties and ethnicity of other editors) misuse(d) the name issue of this article to struggle for their position in another "statehood" dispute is topic banned. I believe there is more productive action than freezing the move proposals for a year. The six-month ban to participate in move discussions of that article imposed to them would remove the main obstacle to resolve the name issue of the article.
- I think I explained you why I believe your decision to ban me (and not the other party which deserves it much more, based on the rationale you used) was not justified nor neutral. Therefore I appeal to you to lift the ban you imposed. It would be also in the best interest of the quality of the article because there are many other issues I did not have enough time to resolve. I will not lose time and energy to follow the appeal process over this unjustified ban. I appeal to you to think about what I wrote and if you agree with me to accept your mistake and lift this ban. Whether you accept my proposals or not this will be my last comment about this ban on this talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Asking for an opinion
An editor didn't like what I did to a DYK nominee of his, Mike Redmond. The matter has been discussed at a talk page and the only editor to comment agreed with what I did.
The DYK nominator wrote on the nominating page complaining of what I did. I replied back with an explanation but the nominator deleted it. I reverted it saying he brought the topic up, so it necessitated a reply. Was the nominator wrong in deleting my explanation or was I wrong in putting it back up. I'll abide by your decision. At the moment I'm bringing up another concern about the nominee article on the talk page but this time it looks like consensus doesn't agree with me.
Now he is saying I can't comment at the DYK page because I'm not a contributor. A check of my edits at the Mike Redmond article history shows that to be false. I'm not replying back, but let you handle it. So far as my concerns with the Redmond article, I'm through but Bloom6132's behavior could be compared a stalker. He's following me and at the same time telling me where and where not to edit....William 19:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with your edits. Unless he tries to remove your comment from DYK again, I suggest that you wait and see what others have to say. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely ludicrous lies by William! How the heck is that stalking when we're both involved in a WikiProject community discussion. Unless William thinks I don't have the right to edit the WikiProject's talk page, I don't see how there's any truth in his false accusation. And it's true that William hasn't contributed any significant prose towards the article (see the article history for more info). If he had, his name would be under the "Created/expanded by" section. It isn't, and rightly so. My question is—why is William editing the nomination template when:
1. He's not one of the "Created/expanded by" users, and
2. He's not reviewing the article.
If he doesn't fall in either two of these categories, I have to question his motive of editing the template. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC- Ed, he's clearly following me around. Is it time for me to file a harassment or cyber bullying complaint at ANI?...William 20:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hey! You have no right to talk behind my back. Anything written that involves me in some way is my business. And you want to "file a harassment or cyber bullying complaint"? Get a life and take your soapbox somewhere else! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is common to see a variety of people commenting on a DYK nomination. Unless WiliamJE is somehow obstructing the process, I don't see why his comment doesn't belong. Anyone who is surprised to see controversy at DYK must be new around here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's debatable whether he's obstructing the process, but what he did was completely unnecessary, since there was a thread that was already active on WT:MLB. Why is he taking it to the DYK nomination when he's not the nominator or expander? On a separate note, I'd like to counter-file a harassment case, since William has been falsely and maliciously comparing my behavior to that of "a stalker". This is a complete lie, is basically a personal attack and to let it go unpunished would condone malicious and false statements being spread across WP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Taking down my comment at the nomination page and your repeated attempts at telling me where and where I can't editisn't stalking or cyberbullying? Ed above said none of my edits were wrong. File at ANI yourself if you want, but WP:BOOMERANG could be a result.
- Ed, I've never nominated anything for DYK but Swissair Flight 316 an article I created went through the DYK process and I learned about it only afterwards.
- As for Bloom6132, I will go to ANI if he continues to tell me what i can or can not do on WP or makes personal attacks....William 20:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't told you what you can or cannot do. I'm just sayin', usually only the expanders of an article or a reviewer comments on the template. It's extremely peculiar for someone who falls into neither of the 2 categories to do so. That's all. And for the record, it is you who has been making personal attacks on me, calling me "silly", then falsely accusing me of being "a stalker". The words "hypocrisy" and "passive-aggressive behavior" come to mind when evaluating the situation. In fact, I think ownership issues arise when you consider how William dictates to me what can and cannot be added to the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's debatable whether he's obstructing the process, but what he did was completely unnecessary, since there was a thread that was already active on WT:MLB. Why is he taking it to the DYK nomination when he's not the nominator or expander? On a separate note, I'd like to counter-file a harassment case, since William has been falsely and maliciously comparing my behavior to that of "a stalker". This is a complete lie, is basically a personal attack and to let it go unpunished would condone malicious and false statements being spread across WP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is common to see a variety of people commenting on a DYK nomination. Unless WiliamJE is somehow obstructing the process, I don't see why his comment doesn't belong. Anyone who is surprised to see controversy at DYK must be new around here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hey! You have no right to talk behind my back. Anything written that involves me in some way is my business. And you want to "file a harassment or cyber bullying complaint"? Get a life and take your soapbox somewhere else! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ed, he's clearly following me around. Is it time for me to file a harassment or cyber bullying complaint at ANI?...William 20:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely ludicrous lies by William! How the heck is that stalking when we're both involved in a WikiProject community discussion. Unless William thinks I don't have the right to edit the WikiProject's talk page, I don't see how there's any truth in his false accusation. And it's true that William hasn't contributed any significant prose towards the article (see the article history for more info). If he had, his name would be under the "Created/expanded by" section. It isn't, and rightly so. My question is—why is William editing the nomination template when:
Bloom6132, you're rapidly forfeiting any sympathy I might have had for your position on this. Both of you please stay cool and wait to see what others have to say at DYK. If you take this to ANI you will probably be greeted with humorous remarks about boomerangs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Do you still think I shouldn't bring this to ANI or another board after the comments Bloom made today? That came one of the DYK contributors said they thought my edits were appropriate. I want to move on, Bloom however continues with the personal attacks....William 19:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've given evidence about personal attacks on your part. So please do the same and substantiate your allegation of personal attacks on my part. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- How am I forfeiting sympathy when I'm just stating the facts? Am I wrong by telling the truth? I'd also like to inform anyone reading this thread that I have never reported anything to ANI, and do not intend to do so even with this situation. Even in the three incidents I've been involved in, nothing has ever had to transcend to ANI. I've always maintained civility, settled all disputes outside of ANI and know the rules plain and simple. That's the reason why I've never been blocked—my track record speaks for itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bloom6132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- I've added userlinks above for both of you. I'm going to be offline so I can't offer any other opinion right now. It would be interesting to know if either of you is following practical steps to resolve your dispute. We expect both of you to have diplomatic skills; admins are not referees. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
re: Micro Cabin
Let's be rude about this one: "Micro Cabin" is incorrect. It was a mistake that turned into a bandwagon. People who understand Misplaced Pages should be able to understand this easily, since Misplaced Pages is under Creative Commons and is otherwise the first go-to for info (no matter how much people try to say otherwise).
The company website uses MICROCABIN, the Japanese article for the company uses MICROCABIN, and any of their games that don't just use the katakana form should be using MICROCABIN. The best thing to do is either keep "MICROCABIN" or change it to "Microcabin". That is what matters, not these fake "English sources" that steal the mistakes from everything else and know so little about any bit of info in their databases, especially obscure Japanese or Japanese-only works. Despatche (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you source 'Microcabin' from any website published by the company itself? I could only find a website in Japanese. How about this page. Is the word transliterated there somewhere in katakana? Did the company ever publish a formal document in English containing their name? EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. It contains マイクロキャビン in heavily stylized katakana as the header. That would normally transliterate as MAIKUROKYABIN, but would serve for MICROCABIN as well. Note that the copyright notice on the page includes "MICROCABIN", not "Micro Cabin". If was important to them that their name to be treated as two words, it would be マイクロ・キャビン. All told, I think the odds of Despatche being right are quite good.—Kww(talk) 18:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Kww, thanks for your very informative answer. Please share your views about the proper title at the move discussion on Talk:MicroCabin. It does appear that Microcabin hasn't specified the title they want to be used in English for their company. (How much would it cost to maintain an English web page). We should still do the best we can with the limited information. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. It contains マイクロキャビン in heavily stylized katakana as the header. That would normally transliterate as MAIKUROKYABIN, but would serve for MICROCABIN as well. Note that the copyright notice on the page includes "MICROCABIN", not "Micro Cabin". If was important to them that their name to be treated as two words, it would be マイクロ・キャビン. All told, I think the odds of Despatche being right are quite good.—Kww(talk) 18:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Cassandra/Scots language articles
I'm most grateful for your advice about Cassandra's edits on Scots language articles and have requested semi-protection for the two articles as advised. Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a look at IP edits on Scots language and History of the Scots language which fit Cassandra's line of edits and tagged the IPs as being socks of each other (see this cat (the choice of which IP is puppetmaster is by necessity fairly arbitrary)), largely to have one place where these edits can be viewed together more easily. I did start investigating IP edits to other articles this initial group of IPs has also edited but this could be a major task and there is already somewhat of a pattern establishing itself so I thought I'd give you a shout.
- I think the earliest edit so far is this one, which informally identifies as "Steve A." rather than Cassandra. There are some other edits identifying as "Steve A." and also as "Yorkshire Tyke". Almost all of the IPs are in the range 92.5.-. Of the ones outside of this range, the one starting 90.- has made more clearly vandalous entries to an article page than fits the pattern with the 92.5.-s but does make a reference to "Tyke" (emboldened to misbehave more when the IP points less clearly to them?). The current main target of the edits seems to have moved to Middle Scots incidentally.
- The constant IP-hopping and multiple informal identity names used further points to nefarious intent. Can you advise on any measures which would be appropriate in the light of this? Can one warn an IP range, or could one make a temporary block to an IP range, if that's appropriate or practicable, or would it be so wide as to have a likelihood of blocking blameless users? Any other advice? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The range 92.5.0.0/16 is probably too large to block. You can periodically check the contributions from that range using this rangecontribs link if you wish. If in the future you find that he is trying to actively edit some Scots-related article (making several controversial edits per week) you could let me know or make a new request at WP:RFPP. If the problem is still going on in three weeks I'd suggest you file a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations just to simply the recordkeeping. I can assist with the report if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. The link will be very handy to keep track of where he's popping up. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hugle COI
I am not sure if you are aware of this discussion Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Frances_Hugle and/or whether you feel that any additional statements by you there would have different/more impact than your comments directly on the user's talk page? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw the entry at COIN. The current problem in my opinion is that Talk:Frances Hugle contains no useful information about what's still wrong with the article. It seems to feature a battle between Cheryl and those trying to explain Misplaced Pages policy. If you understand the issues there, it would be helpful if you could summarize on Talk what improvements in the article you think are still needed. If Cheryl continues to edit against consensus I think admins will take action, so don't be too worried about that aspect. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there have been detailed attempts like there have been brief attempts like there have been referals directly to the policy pages. I am not sure what other ways to attempt? Do you have some framework in mind? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
My reply
Hi Ed. I undid my reply to you at ANI due to my promise to Lothar and Mtking that I would not comment there tonight. But here it is FWIW. Δρ.Κ. 03:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are very welcome Ed. BTW I agree with most of your well taken and good humoured points about closing the thread. Δρ.Κ. 03:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Navman101
Navman101 is still editing around the block as Navman2013. Edward321 (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Noted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Paoli Dam
You had protected this article and also Mushrooms (film) which was very helpful! I'll ask to elongate the protection limit soon. But, now in every few days he is adding edit requests in talk page. Please see from here. He never signs or adds headers. Every time he posts I do it for him. He has been told to discuss first or provide RS which he does not care! Any suggestion? Should I only keep ignoring? --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- And also I have just noticed he has asked for help in someone's talk page archive here which is not a common practice in Misplaced Pages,I think. I'll notify him. I did not follow contribution of his other IP addresses. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The repeated edit requests from 122.163.*, like the one here, are not vandalism, they are just annoying. I recommend ignoring the requests (or closing them with 'See above') unless you think that semiprotecting the article talk page is justifiable. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- And also I have just noticed he has asked for help in someone's talk page archive here which is not a common practice in Misplaced Pages,I think. I'll notify him. I did not follow contribution of his other IP addresses. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Blacklight Power
Hi, you put a protection template on Blacklight Power saying it was the subject to a WP:ARBPS. Could you direct me to the appropriate ARBPS discussion please? I couldn't find it, but may be looking in the wrong spot. Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- The subject of Blacklight Power is a company that claims to produce energy by a mechanism that is not accounted for by standard physics. The USPTO would not issue a patent, according to the article, because: ".. the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry". That would seem to place Blacklight Power in the same category of articles as Perpetual motion. If you want to read the text of the ARBPS decision, you can find it at WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. One of Arbcom's findings was: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I looked there but couldn't see anything relating to BLP. Is it an archived case? Can you point me to where it is exactly? As for USPTO, you (and the article) appear to be operating on out of date information. But given I can't get "bullshit" quoted from a blog out of the lede, I don't like my chances of making any more substantive changes at this stage!! Here ] is the patent. Presumably this renders it no longer within the realm of perpetual motion in your mind? Are you happy to make the relevant changes to the article (given I can't)? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Semiprotection might not be needed if the IPs working on the article would engage with others in a search for a talk page consensus, one to which all parties would defer. Editors who want to work on highly contentious topics are well-advised to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I looked there but couldn't see anything relating to BLP. Is it an archived case? Can you point me to where it is exactly? As for USPTO, you (and the article) appear to be operating on out of date information. But given I can't get "bullshit" quoted from a blog out of the lede, I don't like my chances of making any more substantive changes at this stage!! Here ] is the patent. Presumably this renders it no longer within the realm of perpetual motion in your mind? Are you happy to make the relevant changes to the article (given I can't)? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you can reasonably characterise my work as not attempting to engage with others. The difficulty has been getting them to engage with me on the salient points. I am attempting to improve the article - and a whitewash or POV account does not make for a good article. Are you saying you wont make the changes, nor remove the protection? Or do you think it appropriate for erroneous information to remain? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- If the other editors don't find your arguments convincing, that's not a problem that I'm willing to solve for you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the problem I'm asking you to solve. I'm asking you to either make the edits yourself, or let me do it. Please note that: i) you have not shown me to be a vandal; ii) have not shown me to be unwilling to engage with other editors; iii) have not accepted that your own justification for the semi-protection is based on outdated information; and iv) that the page is still protected. So you leave me in the position of asking you to make the changes, or remove the protection so that I can. Or are you saying that the only way I can continue to edit the article is to create an account? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- If the other editors don't find your arguments convincing, that's not a problem that I'm willing to solve for you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you can reasonably characterise my work as not attempting to engage with others. The difficulty has been getting them to engage with me on the salient points. I am attempting to improve the article - and a whitewash or POV account does not make for a good article. Are you saying you wont make the changes, nor remove the protection? Or do you think it appropriate for erroneous information to remain? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to remove the protection or contribute yourself, can you indicate when it will lapse and I can resume editing? I believe that my attempts should be viewed in a constructive rather than destructive light, and my subsequent attempts to garner any responses from co-editors on the Talk and NoticeBoard pages appear to have failed in the absence of me being able to edit (update: Ooh! someone has replied). I might also draw your attention to the following: Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. I think I have provided sufficient evidence that this is a valid content dispute - please advise if you think this is not the case. Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your five reverts starting at 02:21 on 7 November suggest to me that you were edit warring on this article. That takes away any defense of good-faith editing. If you can get consensus at Talk:Blacklight Power for a change to the article, use the {{editsemiprotect}} template to get the change made. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since when did BRD = Edit warring? Did I violate 3RR? No. Did I try pretty hard to engage other editors? Yes. Was I vandalising the page? No. Was I genuinely trying to make the article more encyclopaedic by removing "Bullshit" quoted from a blog from the lede? Yes. Did anyone ask for the page to be protected? No. Are you effectively privileging registered users over an unregistered user in a valid content dispute in violation of policy? Yes. Have you addressed any of the points that I've raised with you in trying to resolve this matter? No. Have you assumed good faith at any stage? No. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- 110.32.79.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 05:52, 1 November 2012 (edit summary: "toned down dismissals of 2009 and added validation claims from 2012")
- 07:39, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 520863813 by LeadSongDog (talk) Let's take it to talk")
- 08:16, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521639561 by Bhny (talk)You inadvertently reverted more than the refs - please take it to talk")
- 08:25, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521640166 by Bhny (talk)please take it to talk - or edit instead of reverting since you are also reverting valid material - happy to discuss")
- 11:32, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "reworked lede to accomodate more current WP:RS")
- 02:21, 7 November 2012 (edit summary: "gentle change to lede to remove emotive language - no other changes pending talk.")
- 01:45, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521767937 by Bhny (talk) a blog is not a proper source - please discuss on talk")
- 08:06, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521951547 by History2007 (talk) Please look up the meaning of 'unjustified' then read the Talk page.")
- 10:02, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521965554 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) Note to History2007, DV's was an unjustified edit. There is a discussion underway on Talk, please engage in it.")
- 02:01, 9 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521977142 by History2007 (talk) Quality trumps quantity")
- That looks to be ten reverts by you at BlackLight Power beginning on 1 November. Can you indicate which of those reverts were supported by the consensus of other editors on the talk page? A version of the article which is supported only by you and not by anyone else is unlikely to survive. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since when did BRD = Edit warring? Did I violate 3RR? No. Did I try pretty hard to engage other editors? Yes. Was I vandalising the page? No. Was I genuinely trying to make the article more encyclopaedic by removing "Bullshit" quoted from a blog from the lede? Yes. Did anyone ask for the page to be protected? No. Are you effectively privileging registered users over an unregistered user in a valid content dispute in violation of policy? Yes. Have you addressed any of the points that I've raised with you in trying to resolve this matter? No. Have you assumed good faith at any stage? No. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Not familiar with tag team editing? I was (and am) engaging with editors. Most of my early attempts have been dismissed out of hand, seemingly without giving any thought to what I was trying to achieve. Nobody engaged with my arguments or evidence, they just reverted. If I left their version, my attempts at discussion were ignored - reverting generated enough interest for them to at least come to the Talk page. One editor openly expressed their exhaustion at trying to "defend" the page on a notice board and called for other editors to help. I recognise that one voice does not a consensus make, but I believe I am making (slow) progress. There are obvious issues with this piece: it has obvious unencyclopaedic parts, and is obviously out of date. How do you propose I go about remedying those flaws when I am up against a group who are determined to 'protect' it - warts and all. I am not partisan in the BLP debate - I am neither convinced BLP is right or wrong. The problem is that the other editors are convinced of the latter, and so to them I look like the former. I also recognise that it will take time for them to see that the edits I am proposing are actually fair minded, not a whitewash or POV puffery. However your block severely limits my scope of action in that I can't make modest changes that will demonstrate my point through iterations of BRD. So while I may seem like a pain in the arse, my intentions are quite reasonable - and in my experience it sometimes takes a great deal of persistence to break through some people's mindset for them to see that just because you're not entirely in their camp doesn't mean you are in their enemies camp. I just want a good article. The topic is of interest to me, and this article doesn't do it justice. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Our policy does not require that we let you revert the article indefinitely. Your best plan is to try to persuade other editors on the talk page. If you find that nobody shares your view on this, you should let it go. EdJohnston (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Our policy does require that unregistered users are not needlessly treated as second-class editors. You are being unreasonable. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- A registered user who reverted as much as you (without waiting for support on the talk page) would be in the same amount of trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Our policy does require that unregistered users are not needlessly treated as second-class editors. You are being unreasonable. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not a newsletter
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Frustration
Hi, Ed. Can I ask how you did that? I tried to use the 3rr.php tool, but it wouldn't give me any results. You'd think it would be easy… but if I put "Australian Christian Lobby" in the "Article" field and Zaalbar or Dominus Vobisdu or Bishonen or whatever in the "User" field, it just says "Got nutin'". All the other fields are optional! But even when I effortfully added diffs and stuff to them (cursing, as it largely ruined the convenience of using the tool), it still gave me nutin'. What do you think I'm doing wrong… ? Bishonen | talk 14:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
- When you invoke 3rr.php, fill in the form and press 'Generate', you ought to see the following appear in the URL field of your browser:
- Is that what you get? To double check, you should be able to click on the above URL and it will show you the expected list of diffs. Possibly you are putting in 'User:Foo' instead of just 'Foo'. Don't use any square brackets when filling in the form. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, the URL I get is only http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php?article=Australian+Christian+Lobby+%E2%80%8E+&user=Zaalbar&revid=&warndiff=. Thanks for your suggestions, but no, I didn't make any of those mistakes. Perhaps the tool is temporarily on the fritz, or perhaps it doesn't like my browser (SeaMonkey for Mac). I suppose I'll try Firefox and Opera.. groan. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
- Firefox worked! Sorry to have bothered you.. though why the tool has to fuck with a normally completely trouble-free browser like SeaMonkey.. grumble, grumble. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
- Your version of the URL (as printed above) has extra characters at the end of 'Australian Christian Lobby': %E2%80%8E. Remove those and it should work, perhaps even in SeaMonkey. There is complaint on the web about an Opera bug that does this, but there's no obvious reason for you to be running into that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Aha. It's a little weird, because it's been several weeks since I last upgraded SeaMonkey, and it hasn't messed with any other URLs in the meantime. Oh well, the Opera guy did say it didn't happen to him all the time either. Anyway, now I know what to look for. Thank you for taking the trouble to check it out. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
- Your version of the URL (as printed above) has extra characters at the end of 'Australian Christian Lobby': %E2%80%8E. Remove those and it should work, perhaps even in SeaMonkey. There is complaint on the web about an Opera bug that does this, but there's no obvious reason for you to be running into that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A request for clarification has been filed
And you have been mentioned as an involved party. Please review the request and consider assisting to clarify the matter before the committee. Thank you, My76Strat (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)