This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 06:26, 5 March 2016 (→Edit War on Page Cenk Uygur: Use talk or WP:DR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:26, 5 March 2016 by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (→Edit War on Page Cenk Uygur: Use talk or WP:DR)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
3RR
Not all those editors who violate the policy will face block? I know about the exemptions, of course. Mhhossein (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is this about a specific case? EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, to be honest.This case I meant! I'd like to know if I've missed a point. Mhhossein (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Since full protection is enough to stop a war, we usually don't issue *both* blocks and protections. With some exceptions. The IP who filed the report didn't help their case by using a fluctuating IP. If you have an interest in this topic I'd encourage you to make a proposal on the talk page for what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, to be honest.This case I meant! I'd like to know if I've missed a point. Mhhossein (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
The user who you banned for 48 hours is now using a different IP address from the same city (L.A) to vandalise the Flo Rida page. Here's the new IP: 107.72.96.34 BlaccCrab (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Semiprotected My House (Flo Rida song). Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin
Hi, I saw the messages you left at EtienneDolet's page and MyVeryBestWishes page. It is going to be really hard to achieve any kind of agreement on that article as, at least from where I'm standing, one side has decided to dig in and revert any changes to the article they don't like. Dispute resolution in the form of DRN or mediation could work but the disagreements are over so many little issues that it would take forever. Maybe possible if the mediator was very good at it.
On the other hand I do think a 1RR restriction for the article would be a good idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration amendment request archived
The amendment request regarding the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case has been closed and archived (without action). For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
IP edit
There is discussion on Administrators notice board/edit warr on Bonadea,but Bonadea reverting this discussion,escaping from discussion..and violeting 3rr rule many many times,i cant understang what can i do? If we see the history of Administrators notice board/edit warr page ,today just know Bonadea reverted two times. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.250.119.158 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- FYI it's a new sock of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte harassing other users by posting frivoulous user warnings and AN3-reports (see their contributions). Thomas.W 19:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
definition of revert
I'm wondering if this needs to be looked at again. See my discussion with Floq - I am not at all sure anymore what qualifies as 1R, or rather a 1R violation. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The 3RR report was at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive307#User:Idielive reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Not really edit warring, but warned about disruptive editing), and there was follow-up at User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 8#My 3rr report. It was within discretion for the closing 3RR admin to see four reverts there, but the actual closer did not, he just warned. We often issue warnings at that noticeboard, and this user had only seven edits, so people might have thought he didn't understand the rules yet. Either verdict would have been OK. If you want to ask about the definition of a revert, read WP:Edit warring rather than WP:Reverting, which is only an essay. The actual edits in question did appear to be POV-pushing, and when it is sufficiently blatant, you will see some notice taken of it at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Nice to know it wasn't cut and dried, and I wasn't bothered about the result. But it was actually the current AE discussion on this that made me mention it, not my discussion with Floq (which did leave me with some uncertainty, but that seems part of the general context). Doug Weller talk 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The best kind of reverts to count are blatant reverts. (For instance an edit with 'Rv' or 'Undid' in the summary, or a change that restores a prior version of the article). When it gets to be too subtle, try some other approach. People may be annoyed at being blocked for some number of reverts if it is not obvious to them. If admins disagree on the count, then it's unlikely to be obvious to everyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- The best kind of reverts to count are blatant reverts. (For instance an edit with 'Rv' or 'Undid' in the summary, or a change that restores a prior version of the article). When it gets to be too subtle, try some other approach. People may be annoyed at being blocked for some number of reverts if it is not obvious to them. If admins disagree on the count, then it's unlikely to be obvious to everyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Nice to know it wasn't cut and dried, and I wasn't bothered about the result. But it was actually the current AE discussion on this that made me mention it, not my discussion with Floq (which did leave me with some uncertainty, but that seems part of the general context). Doug Weller talk 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
AE and past block
You know very well what happened by my last block and what it was all about and besides I don't understand why I should get a six month extension for appealing a block. Does that seem fair to you? I got a one week block and I am appealing it, if it is denied, it is denied, but to extend a block to six months merely as a form of punishment for daring to appeal is a dangerous thing and I don't thing that is something that should be encouraged. Sir Joseph 18:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unclear what you mean about your last block. Did you intend to respond to someone else? As to how the appeal is going, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. If you give us reason for being optimistic about your future behavior, judgments could change. So far what you have posted in your defence is not helping your case much. It seems you are sure you can never be wrong about anything. People who can back off gracetully are usually allowed to return to normal editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- What I mean is that I am currently appealing a one week ban and I haven't edited that page since so why would you say that my defense is not helping my case much? I have brought sources, I have brought Bernie's own statements, Bernie's own Senate's site, etc. but regardless, I am just being defensive that is what it is about, especially when you look at the talk page and I can't respond to all the logical fallacies and errors and misstatements. As for my last block that is what Laser is using as his excuse to propose a six month ban. That is not a reason to extend a ban, 1) a past block for a totally different reason and 2) past blocks should not be used for a current block, and 3) you were indeed involved in my last block or block AE appeal if you don't recall and it wasn't so simple as calling someone a bad name. As for the topic at hand, I ask you to read the talk page and see some of the behavior of the other editors and read some of the comments. I am going to stop because at a certain point it is just Misplaced Pages, but as someone else pointed out to Guy Macon, who made him arbiter of 1) what is RS even if it comes from Sanders' own website and 2) the Jewish religion is not like Christianit, you can be Jewish without practicing a whole lot. I certainly don't think it's fair to extend a block to six months just for having a discussion or for an appeal. Sir Joseph 18:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Defending your content position at AE is an elementary mistake. You are not supposed to show that you are right but that you have behaved well. Almost anyone could come up with a better defence than the one you are making at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- My first paragraph showed that I posted the content in what I thought was a correct posting. After that everything went kablooey. Sir Joseph 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- You also should appreciate when someone is Jewish and says "I'm Jewish" but someone says, "No, you're not Jewish" because "I don't think you're Jewish enough for me" and that is what we have there. It does seem odd and at times offensive and it wasn't just me. Gamaliel, Cullen, and others who I'm sure you hold in high esteem thought so. I'm sure I don't need to tell you why someone who is Jewish might find that offensive. But it makes no difference in the end, it's already one day past and after today his goose will be cooked and this whole hullabaloo will die down anyway. Sir Joseph 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- What Ed is saying is that AE isn't at all concerned with the content dispute. It's concerned with whether your behavior requires sanctions. You've spent the whole time trying to explain how your content position is correct and zero time explaining how you didn't know it was a contentious edit. That's why your topic ban is going to be expanded—you actually came in and made your case worse by providing every indication that you intend to continue the same behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- You also should appreciate when someone is Jewish and says "I'm Jewish" but someone says, "No, you're not Jewish" because "I don't think you're Jewish enough for me" and that is what we have there. It does seem odd and at times offensive and it wasn't just me. Gamaliel, Cullen, and others who I'm sure you hold in high esteem thought so. I'm sure I don't need to tell you why someone who is Jewish might find that offensive. But it makes no difference in the end, it's already one day past and after today his goose will be cooked and this whole hullabaloo will die down anyway. Sir Joseph 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- My first paragraph showed that I posted the content in what I thought was a correct posting. After that everything went kablooey. Sir Joseph 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Defending your content position at AE is an elementary mistake. You are not supposed to show that you are right but that you have behaved well. Almost anyone could come up with a better defence than the one you are making at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- What I mean is that I am currently appealing a one week ban and I haven't edited that page since so why would you say that my defense is not helping my case much? I have brought sources, I have brought Bernie's own statements, Bernie's own Senate's site, etc. but regardless, I am just being defensive that is what it is about, especially when you look at the talk page and I can't respond to all the logical fallacies and errors and misstatements. As for my last block that is what Laser is using as his excuse to propose a six month ban. That is not a reason to extend a ban, 1) a past block for a totally different reason and 2) past blocks should not be used for a current block, and 3) you were indeed involved in my last block or block AE appeal if you don't recall and it wasn't so simple as calling someone a bad name. As for the topic at hand, I ask you to read the talk page and see some of the behavior of the other editors and read some of the comments. I am going to stop because at a certain point it is just Misplaced Pages, but as someone else pointed out to Guy Macon, who made him arbiter of 1) what is RS even if it comes from Sanders' own website and 2) the Jewish religion is not like Christianit, you can be Jewish without practicing a whole lot. I certainly don't think it's fair to extend a block to six months just for having a discussion or for an appeal. Sir Joseph 18:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
no, that's not what I did. My first paragraph explained why I thought it was a valid edit. Have I edited the page after the block? No. I didn't. So there's no reason other than I dared to appeal. Sir Joseph 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
104.162.193.17
- 104.162.193.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello, This @104.162.193.17: has returned to make the same disruptive edits. He attacks me personally and called me an Islamic provocateur here and tracks my contributions. Can you please stop him? Thank you--Opdire657 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Due to the continued use of an IP address to edit WP:ARBPIA topics, I've issued a new AE block for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ed, there was no notice that this article in question is subject to the same sanction. According to the article this is about the ancient territory, but then again....it should be clarified at least with a talk page notice to the user.Sir Joseph 18:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is hard not to see this edit the IP made on your talk as a violation. He is trying to get you to make a proxy edit for him on Category:Western Wall, while calling someone else an 'obvious muslim provocateur'. He also appears to be stalking Opdire657 by reverting his edit on an unrelated topic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the talk page violation. I could see it as a civility or NPA perhaps but he didn't edit the ARBPIA area. I agree with the stalking and being a bad editor I just don't know if it should be an AE block as opposed to a regular block, since the actual edit he was blocked for at the Wine article wasn't really clarified as being under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- He seems to have appealed the block, and another admin has responded. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, for the block you gave him two weeks ago. :) Sir Joseph 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 states: "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." If you examine the edits; edit warring to change Canaan to Israel is clearly an WP:1RR violation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. So the claim that the article is about wine so the block is unfounded is disingenuous. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why would that necessarily be about the conflict and even if it is, he was not notified about that. His last edit he was notified and he was blocked for it and he stayed away from that area. These things are not necessarily so clear to users and we should not be so out to block people. Feel free to revert but if they weren't notified that any article with the word Israel is subject based on how some admin determines, it's not fair to block them for a few months, at least based on the edit of that post. The nice thing would have been to revert and tell him that he should not be editing even the wine article.Sir Joseph 21:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 states: "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." If you examine the edits; edit warring to change Canaan to Israel is clearly an WP:1RR violation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. So the claim that the article is about wine so the block is unfounded is disingenuous. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, for the block you gave him two weeks ago. :) Sir Joseph 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- He seems to have appealed the block, and another admin has responded. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the talk page violation. I could see it as a civility or NPA perhaps but he didn't edit the ARBPIA area. I agree with the stalking and being a bad editor I just don't know if it should be an AE block as opposed to a regular block, since the actual edit he was blocked for at the Wine article wasn't really clarified as being under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is hard not to see this edit the IP made on your talk as a violation. He is trying to get you to make a proxy edit for him on Category:Western Wall, while calling someone else an 'obvious muslim provocateur'. He also appears to be stalking Opdire657 by reverting his edit on an unrelated topic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ed, there was no notice that this article in question is subject to the same sanction. According to the article this is about the ancient territory, but then again....it should be clarified at least with a talk page notice to the user.Sir Joseph 18:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Notification may not be necessary in cases of flagrant AE breaches; unless I am missing something this is not a flagrant breach and, IMHO, is not a breach at all. Reverting between "Canaan" and "Israel" does not, I feel, relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am not suggesting that this is a good editor - some of his recent edits are unacceptable - but I suggest that any block now, if currently warranted, should be an ordinary block rather than an AE one. The imposed block is for three months, which would be lenient for an AE violation but is perhaps harsh for the situation as it exists. I will take no action pending your comment.--Anthony Bradbury 22:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the IP's edits and left a further comment on the IP's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Edit War on Page Cenk Uygur
Hi. I recently made an edit to the page Cenk Uygur concerning his status as an Armenian Genocide denier. Only a few minutes after posting, the edit was undone by the User:Steeletrap. I explained to him my reasoning for including the post and reinserted the citation, but he rather condescendingly told me to contact him if I couldn't comprehend the sentence I was citing. Rather than get into a row I decided to report him for this, but the truth is I have no clue how to. I decided to ask you because I noticed you on his talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion at Talk:Cenk Uygur seems to have barely started. Explain the rationale there for your material. It is too soon for admins to be involved. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Thanks for protecting Talk:Jewish Bolshevism! Hopefully this'll stop the vandal for awhile... FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 06:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC) |