Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 23 August 2015

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Status

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

108.195.137.45 (talk · contribs)

Is there an SPI case page open for this editor? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Why should there be? He's an IP only editor. I haven't kept track of all his IPs lately, but you can see some of the early examples at User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're blocking and bulk-reverting an editor as a sock, there should at the very least be a sock investigation page to explain why.

Why do you think they're a sock? Why do you think they're a problem? Evidence and explanation for this should be somewhere visible that other editors can see. Your IP list page hasn't been edited for two years, so that's hardly convincing evidence. As to their edits from this IP, they're very rapid and could be seen as overlinking, but I really don't see these as vandalism or as a problem sufficient to justify WP:DENY. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously the same editor noted in the IP list. If you want to question that, go ahead on WP:AN or WP:ANI, but I am one of at least 4 Admins who blocks and reverts on sight, although VSmith has been known to allow spacing edits (but not "reasonable" substantive edits), and I believe there are still 2 non-admins who revert on sight. If you want to question the original block(s), WP:ANI is the place, but I don't think you'll find any support for the theory that these are not all the same person (or possibly, a tag team on the same computer). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, check the following: Special:Contributions/99.112.215.217, Special:Contributions/108.195.138.93, Special:Contributions/99.112.213.16 and Special:Contributions/108.195.138.224 for a bit more insight from just last night. This blatant block evasion has been going on for several years (original block in 2011?). The individual is simply exploiting a fundamental weakness in WP by simply logging off - restarting with a new ip address and continuing. You, or anyone, is free to re-instate any of those edits you wish to make your edit - if you wish. Take your concerns to AN if you like - altho not a likely productive use of your time. Vsmith (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It might be obvious to you, but it's far from obvious to other editors who don't know the backstory. If there's an SPI page, this sort of thing can be made obvious to all who have to deal with them. AT&T users from Mighigan isn't enough on its own.

For another thing, who is the orginal editor and where's their block? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andy. I'm familiar with this depressing situation. Please see User_talk:Arthur_Rubin/Archive_2015#1_year_block_of_108.73.115.144. I agree with Arthur and V on the identity of the IP and I'm very sure they are acting in good faith. (I don't agree with the possibility of a tag team, best I can tell it is one person.) Competency is an issue. I am not an administrator. I learned that our administrators can blocked and revert an IP on sight without community process. Hugh (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See links here for links to an attempt to work with the person and some background info. Vsmith (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So this came up already a few months ago? If there was an SPI page, per usual process, there wouldn't be such questioning of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

An SPI page for a group of IPs would be out of process. We may need such a process, but it's not SPI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not SPI? It's socking that they're being reverted for.

We should not ever let any editor become a "block and revert on sight" target for any sub-group of admins, outside of process. Now maybe this one is OK, but there are a couple of admins out there (two obvious names spring to mind) who use this tactic as a deliberate means to squash dissent on a personal basis. De facto banning any editor should be a public process and above board.

If a particular editor, "The Michigan Kid" has become a problem (another problem, this isn't a novel situation) then we may do this. But it has to be public and clearly visible to other editors who might encounter them. We also have to be careful that this editor really is the same one, and that the punishment is not excessive. We allow enormous leeway for reform to the worst of petty vandals, maybe in the hope that "the kid" will grow out of it, and that should still apply here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reporting one of these to SPI would not be helpful in identifying others; unless one were allowed to name the report "Michigan Kid", (which requires modifying templates, as there is no User named "Michigan Kid"), it would appear arbitrary even to SPI regulars. The generally deprecated WP:LTA might be appropriate, where the abuse is block evasion, rather than actions seriously and directly damaging to Misplaced Pages, such as WoW. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@JSmith: Do you think a WP:LTA entry would be helpful? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Saw this and had the same reaction as you, particularly in light of this conspicuous omission. I tire... Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

New page for the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

I would like to let you know that I created the page for the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy: https://es.wikipedia.org/Instituto_para_la_Diplomacia_Cultural

Please let me know your opinion if this is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diplomaciacultural (talk • contribs) 09:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Diplomaciacultural: I am not convinced it's notable, either in English or Spanish, but it's not a speedy delete. When I have time, I'll consider nomination for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to take the challenge to improve the article and would be grateful to receive your suggestions once you can. (Diplomaciacultural (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC))

Question

Why is the Michigan Kid editing my talk page archives? Has he done something like this before? Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Yes, he has. I semi-protected one of my talk page archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Question as to the right time to use.

Hello. When describing events, which is the right time to use, Simple Present or Simple Past Tense? Editors generally use Simple Present. In the article 1962 Simple Present was used, and now another editor changed everything to Simple Past (edit dated July 30, 2015). I will be thankful for your answer. Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski

Wikipedian engineers

Hi, Category:Wikipedian engineers has been tagged as a container (subcats only). Please consider a subcat. Thanks, Slivicon (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Tax protester proposed moves

Since you commented on the move discussion at Talk:Tax protester arguments, you may also wish to comment on the parallel discussion at Talk:Tax protester. They should have been listed together as a multimove; I don't know why the nominator did not do that. bd2412 T 03:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Glider87 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Neve-selbert (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nature reversion

I came here wondering about this reversion , and if there was a particular reason to left align the images in the lead of the nature article, that didn't seem apparent. I then upon further investigation found User talk:99.109.125.193 which cleared it up. I've restored the proper alignment, so at least on that particular page, all seems good. Regards,—Godsy_CONT) 08:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

IP adding spaces

Hello. I don't know what this IP is doing but I noticed you have reverted a similar thing before. Just a heads up. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with those edit? 04:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.64.118 (talk)

The editor was blocked in 2012. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

... or perhaps in 2011. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is an ANI notice which related to edits you have been involved with. ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request notice

. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page