| Revision as of 07:35, 5 May 2021 editFDW777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,732 edits →User:FDW777: add reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:36, 10 January 2025 edit undoCodeTalker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers35,079 edits →Advice on disruptive editor: new topicTag: CD | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| | algo = old(24h) | | algo = old(24h) | ||
| | archive = User talk:ToBeFree/A/%(counter)d | | archive = User talk:ToBeFree/A/%(counter)d | ||
| | counter = |
| counter = 6 | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 1000K | | maxarchivesize = 1000K | ||
| | archiveheader = {{User talk:ToBeFree/A}} | | archiveheader = {{User talk:ToBeFree/A}} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| }}{{User new message large|textcolor=White|color1=MediumBlue|start1=0%|color2=DarkBlue|start2=20%|color3=Navy|start3=75%|bordersize=1px|bordercolor=Navy|radius=10px|textsize=200%|rotation=135deg|icon-left=|icon-right=]|text=Please click here to add a new message!}} | }}{{User new message large|textcolor=White|color1=MediumBlue|start1=0%|color2=DarkBlue|start2=20%|color3=Navy|start3=75%|bordersize=1px|bordercolor=Navy|radius=10px|textsize=200%|rotation=135deg|icon-left=|icon-right=]|text=Please click here to add a new message!}} | ||
| < |
<div class="user-show">{{center|'''<sup>To add this button to your own talk page, you can use <nowiki>{{User new message large}}</nowiki>. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.</sup>'''}}</div><div class="anonymous-show">{{center|'''Please note that you are currently not logged in.'''}} | ||
| {{center|This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does ''not'' require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider ] before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance. ]}}</div> | {{center|This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does ''not'' require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider ] before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance. ]}}</div> | ||
| {{Archives|title=Archives<br><small>[megabytes]</small>|root=User talk:ToBeFree/A|list=<center>], ], ]</ |
{{Archives|title=Archives<br><small>[megabytes]</small>|root=User talk:ToBeFree/A|list=<div style="text-align: center;">], ], ], ], ], ]</div>|auto=yes|search=yes|style=background-color: hsl(225, 100%, 99%); border-color: hsl(225, 100%, 95%);}}__FORCETOC__ | ||
| {{TOC limit|2}} | {{TOC limit|2}} | ||
| == Feedback request: Misplaced Pages proposals request for comment == | |||
| ]Your feedback is requested  at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) | Is this wrong? Contact ]. | Sent at 11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Film LTA == | |||
| == Italian IP-hopper removing details regarding celebrities' deaths == | |||
| Hello, and thank you for dealing with ]. ] may be connected, and I see similarities to ]. ] (]) 22:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey {{u|Certes}}, thank you very much for the notification, and for tracking that case. Re-blocked. I'm not linking to the LTA page in my block reasons just in case they're doing it for this kind of attention. ] ] (]) 22:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| This has been going on for a long time from several IPs in Italy; I just reverted another of their edits. I reported them to AIV last month but one responding admin requested more details then a second responding admin thought I was requesting a rangeblock. Can ''anything'' be done about this? Some of the involved IPs: | |||
| == User:FDW777 == | |||
| <br> | |||
| User:ToBeFree has replied to this private email and requested that I repost it on his talk page. | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| : –] (]) 23:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi {{u|Skywatcher68}}, the large range could be made one of the conditions of an edit filter (]). I have blocked the most recently used address for now, but a filter could prevent the edits or allow them to be found more quickly/easily. ] (]) 08:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, | |||
| ::Thanks! Given that this has been going on for over a year, I followed the suggestion regarding LTA edits and sent an email. –] (]) 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Could you please re-open my ANI about FDW777. The user is acting like a bully, and I don't appreciate the way you've closed it. The fact that someone asked if I had appealed suggested it wouldn't be unreasonable. I've contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages over the years, and I don't like the way that FDW777 is steamrollering over the work of myself and others. I don't appreciate being told that I have a 'Failure or refusal to "get the point"'. What is being ignored is that the behaviour of FDW777 *is* uncivil, and they've had a new article completely altered with their bullying enforcement of BLP policy. And it isn't "forum shopping" - I haven't raised their behaviour elsewhere repeatedly. I don't think FDW777 is helping to reach consensus. It seems that any efforts to question them are being shut down, though. | |||
| Magst du bitte einmal über die Beiträge drüberschauen und VLs durchführen? Danke dir, ] 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Regards, | |||
| TT.--] (]) 22:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, | |||
| :Thanks for the feedback. FDW777's behavior may not be ideal, but the situation at hand is unsuitable for discussing the described behavior. This is because the core of the dispute is content-related and you have a strong content disagreement that is mixed into your ANI report. If you look at this in a week, you'll probably notice the issue that led to the closure. | |||
| :The BLP policy is one of the very few policies that can be strictly enforced against pretty much all other concerns, including against administrative action: It's one of the very few "exceptional circumstances" named at ], for example. Thus, any attempt to re-negotiate that policy after having been warned about misconduct in the area will inevitably look like IDHT behavior. If that discussion had continued with you throwing further accusations into the noticeboard, a less patient administrator would probably have blocked you, or a less patient community member would have proposed sanctions against you beyond the original warning (e.g. a topic ban). Such sanction discussions then quickly run out of hand as WP:BLP is deeply supported throughout the entire community, and as the community is relatively unwilling to invest time into repeatedly explaining the same BLP policy concerns to the same user again and again. The closure may have prevented a much less desirable situation. | |||
| :For the same reason, I recommend against appealing the warning; I'm not sure if a warning can even be properly appealed. You have been warned, and that's it – the warning can practically not be taken back, as the information has reached its target. Trying to appeal it anyway just goes further into the IDHT area. | |||
| :Again, FDW777's behavior may not be ideal, but for the next weeks or months, you have practically exhausted your means of drawing community attention to it. There's not much I can do about that except pointing it out and explaining it. The situation may well be unfair, but I can't make it fairer; I can only prevent it from escalating further to your disadvantage. | |||
| :PS: I prefer public transparency/accountability to email discussion. <s>If you agree with this principle, please write your original email message as a new message on my talk page, I'll publicly reply with this message 1:1 and you can continue to answer there then. I'd prefer not to (and will probably not) answer per e-mail if there are further questions.</s><ins>''''</ins> I'll happily answer any questions on my talk page, though. | |||
| :Best regards<br>] (]) 22:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi, thank you for posting your message here. I'm glad you agree that "FDW777's behavior may not be ideal". I wasn't attempting to renegotiate the BLP policy; it simply struck me that after a great deal of effort had been spent in creating a new, highly detailed article, ] popped up to complain about it. It was actually created by another editor, though I had some slight involvement in getting it going. My point was that FDW777 is going about this in the wrong way: issuing ultimatums and threats in a terse manner is not appropriate for WP, IMO. There was nothing like "could you please use the birth years only until you have referenced sources for the full list", but simply ill-mannered demands. It's also noteworthy that they did not remove the unsourced DOBs from the articles they highlighted on that Talk page, so the user is clearly rather selective in how they enforce policy. | |||
| ::The BLP policy I violated is actually not the same as the problem in the table identified by FDW777. I used public records to add DOBs in BLP articles. In this instance, I was querying whether the table needed references for every usage of a DOB, since other list tables on WP do ''not'' have fully referenced DOBs. As you can see, I have already appealed against the warning, to no avail, but if I don't violate that policy again, I don't think it should do me any harm. I probably wouldn't have appealed it if another editor hadn't asked if I disputed the result. "The situation may well be unfair" hits the nail on the head in this situation. FDW777 does not assume good faith, and is violating policies around civility. They have yet again insulted me in the talk page for this article, . They are certainly casting aspersions on me there. | |||
| ::Andrew Gray commented on my ANI: "I had reasonably assumed the data in the list was all uncontroversial and did not need each point individually cited, which has been our general practice for list articles like this for many years." This is essentially my issue with FDW777 leaping on the article to demand it conform to BLP or be deleted. The tone and general manner is unhelpful. This isn't the only complaint about FDW777's incivility in recent months - see . ''CeltBrowne is correct, FDW uses baseless claims re WP rules to bully other editors. This user also has a history of tendentious editing in the Troubles area, the PIRA page was denied GAN by Peacemaker67 bc, referring to FDW, "it is clear that my concerns about the article meeting criteria #4 Neutrality (regarding sectarianism), will not be addressed by the nominator. In over 350 Good Article nomination reviews, I have never struck such a level of intransigence from a nominator when a serious concern has been raised about an article."'' I notice that you've previously awarded FDW777 a barnstar, so you may not be entirely neutral when discussing this user. I hope that isn't the case though. The point is, I will accept I am wrong if I the discussion is kept civil and polite. This wasn't, and FDW777's way of handling it has made the situation more heated.--] (]) 01:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Advice on disruptive editor == | |||
| The only thing that has made any dispute "more heated" is your stubborn refusal to listen in order to pursue your unhealthy interest ih the dates of birth of UK MPs. See for example the history of {{la|John Finucane}}. | |||
| Hi! I wanted to ask your advice on how to handle {{User links|150.195.180.35}}. For over a year, this editor has been making the same edits to one particular article (]). All their edits involved changing the OriginalAirDate parameter in an {{tl|Episode list}} template to add a date for a second country. My reading of the documentation for this template is that this is incorrect; this parameter should have only one date in it, the date of it's actual first airing. Several editors (mostly me but also others) have reverted these edits and I have added quite a few warnings on their talk page, but they have not responded and continue to persistently make these changes every few weeks or so (lately more frequently). I have also explained my reversions in each of my edit summaries but the editor has never used an edit summary. | |||
| *. You add a date of birth using public records, in violation of ]. , pointing directly to BLPPRIMARY. You were fully aware of this reversion, due to your subsequent edit on . | |||
| *. You were specifically told about the unsuitability of Companies House as a reference for the dates of birth for living people. | |||
| This is a pretty minor point and I don't think it rises to the level of vandalism, so I don't think it's proper to bring it to AIV or ANI, and they are not breaking 3RR so AN3 isn't appropriate either. Is there a place that would be appropriate to discuss this? Or perhaps I am in the wrong and should just drop this? Thanks for any advice or help that you can offer. ] (]) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *. Back at John Finucane, you ignored the previous reversion of your edit and the post on your talk page, and again added a date of birth using public records from Companies House. | |||
| *. This change was reverted with a clear edit summary of {{tq|WP:BLPPRIMARY. "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. '''Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth''', home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."}} (emphasis added). | |||
| *. You revert to add back the date of birth, claiming {{tq|the fact it is public record implied the subject does not object}}. What part of {{tq|'Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth}} is hard to understand? | |||
| Several editors at several discussions have tried to explain the importance of BLP to you, yet you ignore them and simply continue to ignore it. In those circumstances, my patience is understandably wearing thin. ] (]) 07:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:36, 10 January 2025
Please click here to add a new message!
Please note that you are currently not logged in.
This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance. 
 Archives |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
Feedback request: Misplaced Pages proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections on a "Misplaced Pages proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Italian IP-hopper removing details regarding celebrities' deaths
This has been going on for a long time from several IPs in Italy; I just reverted another of their edits. I reported them to AIV last month but one responding admin requested more details then a second responding admin thought I was requesting a rangeblock. Can anything be done about this? Some of the involved IPs:
151.19.58.228
151.57.143.115
151.35.164.166
151.37.208.134
151.37.140.41
151.47.227.167
151.37.133.229
151.37.130.52
151.57.9.61
151.47.19.185
151.37.230.153
151.57.154.248
151.19.154.35
151.46.183.124
151.43.217.155
- Hi Skywatcher68, the large range could be made one of the conditions of an edit filter (WP:EFR). I have blocked the most recently used address for now, but a filter could prevent the edits or allow them to be found more quickly/easily. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Given that this has been going on for over a year, I followed the suggestion regarding LTA edits and sent an email. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Robiran_56
Magst du bitte einmal über die Beiträge drüberschauen und VLs durchführen? Danke dir, TenWhile6 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Advice on disruptive editor
Hi! I wanted to ask your advice on how to handle 150.195.180.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). For over a year, this editor has been making the same edits to one particular article (List of Rolie Polie Olie episodes). All their edits involved changing the OriginalAirDate parameter in an {{Episode list}} template to add a date for a second country. My reading of the documentation for this template is that this is incorrect; this parameter should have only one date in it, the date of it's actual first airing. Several editors (mostly me but also others) have reverted these edits and I have added quite a few warnings on their talk page, but they have not responded and continue to persistently make these changes every few weeks or so (lately more frequently). I have also explained my reversions in each of my edit summaries but the editor has never used an edit summary.
This is a pretty minor point and I don't think it rises to the level of vandalism, so I don't think it's proper to bring it to AIV or ANI, and they are not breaking 3RR so AN3 isn't appropriate either. Is there a place that would be appropriate to discuss this? Or perhaps I am in the wrong and should just drop this? Thanks for any advice or help that you can offer. CodeTalker (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)