| Revision as of 05:46, 1 April 2012 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →Omen1229: Uncollapse, since this is still being discussed on Omen1229's talk page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits OneClickArchived "Is this an adequate source?" to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 53 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}} | |||
| {{checkuser topicon|cat=yes}} | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 53 | ||
| |algo = old(10d) | |algo = old(10d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives}} | {{archives|search=yes|auto=yes}} | ||
| == ISBNs == | |||
| It may amuse you to know that I have once again fired up Helpful Pixie Bot (as SmackBot is now known) to fix up ISBNS. It is much harder than last time, for various reasons, such as cite templates taking "id = 8427394892" and Googlebooks having ISBNs embedded in the URL, but on the other hand I am using a programming language instead of AWB. One of the first things I found is that some of the 979 range has been allocated, namely 979-10- to French books. (Also about 10 more "small" countries have ranges.) ''] ]'', <small>23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :I'd be interested to see a log of the new ISBN results. Thanks, ] (]) 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The first pass is fixing hyphenation mainly. The errors are being categorised in ]. We picked up one that was wrong on 3000 pages, so that was a good fix. Next dump I'm going to try and work smarter, and a report could be part of that. ''] ]'', <small>22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == Potential SA IP socks == | |||
| Are being discussed on ] in classic turn of the ]. Whether they warrant any action is another matter. Based on your blocking of his work IP addresses, I though you're probably the most familiar with the case. ] (]) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The edits are similar to SA, but that's all I can say. The IP is not in the correct geography (Boston vs. New York). The closest relationship to SA's IP is the exchange at the bottom of , where the two IPs find themselves in agreement and in opposition to Dreadstar. The 128.* IP is obviously SA. The writing style does appear similar, and the disavowal of being a sock seems forced. 'I just happened to drop in here with my perfect knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures to make a small improvement.. ' If there is more of this kind of behavior on fringe articles then semiprotection might be considered. ] (]) 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, the 7xxx are in Boston, but 69.86.225.27 is in NY. Although it hasn't edited in a month, I don't thing anyone else has used it. I think it's his home line net, probably with static IP. The Boston ones could be a friend/relative etc. given that they were seldom used. ] (]) 14:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding the NY IPs, IP 69.86.225.27 is not used at the moment, but another IP with the same New York geolocate and with the same behaviour is currently active on "cold fusion". Regarding the Boston IPs, it may be noted that the Boston and NY IPs never edit at the same time and the Boston IPs tend to be on weekends. How to proceed ? --] (]) 21:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are we discussing just | |||
| ::::*{{userlinks|71.174.134.165}} and | |||
| ::::*{{userlinks|76.119.90.74}} ? | |||
| ::::If you know of others, please list them. The urgency of any SPI report may depend on the volume of controversial edits. SA tends to draw attention to his own socks by using them to make complaints at admin boards. He often expresses great indignation and makes negative comments about Misplaced Pages policy. That might explain his use of 76.119.90.74 at ANI. If it's my decision to make, I am unlikely to take any action on a sock that is not currently active. ] (]) 21:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*{{userlinks|24.215.188.24}} | |||
| :::::*{{userlinks|69.86.225.27}} see "editing from home" | |||
| :::::--] (]) 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So far the evidence against {{userlinks|24.215.188.24}} seems of most concern. I am not sure of doing anything yet, myself. You could file at ] if you want. , nobody stated that this is a correctly vanished user who shouldn't be mentioned by name, so you might consider opening an SPI under the editor's original name. I can see the logic of blocking 76.119.90.74, 69.86.225.27 and 24.215.188.24 for abuse of multiple accounts. I would not do so unless it turned out that others believed this was an appropriate step. So if you want anything done in the near future, an ] is best. I offer no prediction of success in such a venture, it's just a step that is open to you. ] (]) 01:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == For your attention == | |||
| {{you've got mail}} I regret I have too much on my plate currently to expend effort on WP procedures. I'm posting this to insure awareness I have communicated to you. Thanks & best, ]<small> ►]</small> 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Replied, with a suggestion to make your views known somewhere on the wiki. ] (]) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ed, is what you had in mind when you gave that advice? You know there are interaction bans in place, right? I see no need to go thru normal WP procedures for this, as I too have too much on my plate. But I am asking you, '''openly''', to act upon this. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is still within your power to limit the drama, if you are willing to do so. Should I block him for ten minutes to spare your sensitivities? Your creation of the cartoon risks offending some people and evidently it has. When I replied to him I should have remembered that he couldn't post about you anywhere on the wiki due to the IBAN. That was my mistake. ] (]) 13:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have reported this to ]. Additionally, I am regarding you as involved in this instance due to private correspondence between you and Vecrumba on this matter, and due to what you have posted to him and myself on your talk page above. It is likely inadvertently involved, but involved all the same. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am still ] since I have participated in this matter only in admin capacity. You are still welcome to file at AE and see what reaction you get. ] (]) 15:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am requesting that you no longer use the tools on myself due to your refusal to sanction Vecrumba for a blatant personal attack on myself in violation of the interaction ban, whilst you suggest that I get a one week block for an edit which didn't worry you. You said yourself, you are expected to enforce these interaction bans, and you have refused to act when brought to your attention. Sorry Ed, but you have not shown yourself to be a neutral admin in this instance, and I don't feel comfortable with you using the tools when it comes to these interaction bans. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: where you said as such in relation to expectation to enforce IBANs. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have not taken any action against you in this matter nor have I issued any blocks of anyone. Your preference that I not participate is not something I'm bound to recognize, and you seem to be going out of your way to pursue the route of maximum drama. (Apparently you no longer have 'too much on your plate'). Admins are never *required* to take action if they don't want to. In my opinion the cartoon you are working on is likely to cause controversy, and you ought to be attempting to calm the waters, not roil them. ] (]) 16:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::In the case that you cite above (from the ) you were charged with editing a whole bunch of articles in violation of your interaction ban. While I favored doing something, I was not the the admin who closed the case. If you had made an agreement to stop doing those edits, I would have been happy to see the case closed without a block. ] (]) 18:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks... == | |||
| ...for the semi-protection of my talk page. An IP hopping sockpuppet has been stalking my (and others) edits recently. ] (]) 04:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome. If protection needs to be extended you can always request it at ]. ] (]) 13:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you. == | |||
| Thank you very much. Please, check my request for . Thank you. ] (]) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The two IPs that you list seem to be Baboon43, but the registered accounts in your report seem unlikely to me. They are also very old (2006 or 2007), so checkusers would not be able to do anything with them. ] (]) 17:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you for the prompt response. ] (]) 17:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: With regards to {{checkuser|1=Baboon43}} who claims that his / her IP address changes "constantly," if that is the case then why {{checkip|1=70.54.66.158}} shows up as (See ). Thank you. ] (]) 19:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was not aware that 'whois' services could tell whether an IP is dynamic or static. I wonder what they are basing this on. Generally I use behavior to tell if something is static. ] (]) 21:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Since he is still claiming to be a "newbie" and "naive." Please, check the following edits: | |||
| :::::* by {{checkip|1=Samia_et}}, | |||
| :::::* by {{checkip|1=Baboon43}} and | |||
| :::::* by {{checkip|1=70.54.66.158}}. | |||
| :::::They are all the same and done by the very same user. I regret that my was declined. Thank you. ] (]) 11:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Could you have a look at the recent edit history here? I count over 3 reverts by one editor, and would rather not issue a block or continue to warn myself since I am involved. Thanks! ] ] 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Disregard, this has been resolved. Thanks! ] ] 21:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == "low-seniority single-purpose accounts" == | |||
| Hi, is this a term that you have just now coined, or has it been used before? And if the latter, do you know if there has been any other on-Misplaced Pages discussion about it? ] 23:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That is my coinage. It's a way to refer to a class of accounts that are easy for sockmasters to create. There may also be some good-faith editors in that category, but the SPA aspect is easy to check, and the edit count is easy to check. I am planning to suggest a discretionary sanction that might restrict low-seniority single-purpose accounts from editing one or more articles in AA, such as ]. ] (]) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::So really you are using it to define a category of user that could (if actual evidence existed rather than a suspicion) already be sanctioned using existing means. I was thinking a "low-seniority single-purpose account" was more along the lines of a genuine editor who edits almost exclusively in a ''very narrow range'' of articles, or even on just one article, and edits problematically because they have either some pov-buzzing bee-in-their-bonnet about the article's subject or they do not know much about the wider issues to realise their edits are problematic. Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles are, as a whole, not a very narrow range of articles - it is very loosely defined and there are probably hundreds of thousands of Misplaced Pages articles that could, if an administrator was so inclined, fall under its sanctions. Perhaps there should be some general Misplaced Pages-wide guidance that could apply to all low-seniority single-purpose accounts who edit problematically. ] 02:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cases for which Arbcom has authorized ] are cases where admins are allowed to consider measures that are out of the ordinary. Admins are expected to have a good-faith belief that these additional sanctions might do some good. If you check the log of enforcement at ] and other cases you will see some very specific restrictions that were adopted for particular articles. We already have ] to deal with blatant socking, but in the AA articles the debates at AE are full of sock charges which are difficult to confirm one way or the other. A ] restriction is one of the unusual means that is authorized and used for articles that are often subject to disruption. Arbcom has frequently mentioned the use of 1RR as a remedy, so the Committee is willing to consider article-specific restrictions that are designed to limit abuse. A restriction against 'low-seniority single-purpose accounts' is a new kind of restriction that enforcing admins might, in the future, be asked to consider as a discretionary sanction. Since it would be applied uniformly to all parties it would not be a partisan remedy. Whether it's a good idea is something that would need wider discussion. I have not yet officially proposed this at AE, though I've mentioned it at ]. ] (]) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == bad call == | |||
| Ed, I have no idea why you have fired a shot across my port side. Does it strike as odd that Carlingford Lough page has suffered years of edit warring and pov pushing yet an RFc and DR have only been raised recently with both Domer and Bjmullan providing only a pov argument to oppose a a Change. A prime example where Bjmullan and Domer have forced through their opinion. . I guess if you are warning me with a probabionary period, should I care? Given that Domer has been able to edit freely during this sanction. ] (]) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I found it odd that he classed that as an example of consensus building full stop. None of you have been doing any Misplaced Pages-style consensus building over there, but it appears you've been singled out because you're less experienced at this sort of warring than your opponents. Perhaps he is hinting to you that you need to become more like them to succeed? Who knows. Anyway, as the protecting admin, perhaps he can fulfill the request I've had to make because of the fallout from this nonsense, for an unrelated edit to insert some badly needed basic contextual information to the article. I could give my opinion on the actual content in dispute, but it's pretty clear that nothing anybody says about it would be listened to, that's for sure. ] (]) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Ed. While I can understand the logic and reasoning which prompted your actions both and , I do not think they have had the desired effect. Despite one of the SPA accounts for making , the other SPA continued with the same . Regardless of the fact that the blocking Admin outlined the , the editor has refused to disengage and instead made . With one SPA account blocked, we have another editor show up, who has moved the dispute to yet another article with a clear . They too have now made a report at . With another of having just (I've outlined some of the history of ) this is exactly the same spillover situation which another on Carlingford Lough. I fully support the blocking Admin's call for a CU, as the level of abuse is way out of hand. Thanks--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you decide to file a complaint at ], let me know in case I want to comment. My own tolerance for Hackneyhound and Neetandtidy is wearing thin. Further nonsense can be handled under ] now that Hackneyhound has been warned. Do you even understand what this is about? What is the significance of Carlingford Lough? Incidentally are you still under Troubles probation? Thanks, ] (]) 20:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Yep still under probation till April I think, which explains my lack of editing. Needless to say I was not at all happy about it. The short hand answer to what it is about revolves around the status of Norther Ireland. Is it or is it not a country. Hence the issue of "international boarder." On Carlingford Lough, it is like Sarek rightly noted, . At least your in on , having closed down the Carlingford venue. Hope that helps, and yes I can just see you throwing your eyes to heaven and saying "You can not be serious, that's what this is all about". Who on earth would waste that many socks on an issue like that. LOL. PS: LOL is laugh out loud, just in case it's suggested that it's . --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::!!! Just what every Admin likes to here. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Domer, consider yourself informed that I am not a "brand new" editor, and have never claimed to be one. I am a returning editor who intitially just wanted to make an edit to the Loch article, having seen it come up via the NI talk page. It's protected no thanks to you though, so that's that. Right. Introductions over, now let's get to the holy shit bit. Just so I've got this straight. Ed, you're the one claiming to be the enforcer of the Troubles area right? Or so you told me a minute ago at my talk page. And Floquenbeam is another admin whose also dishing out blocks to people invloved in it at the behest of these rambling complaints from Domer which, while they include diffs, don't ever correspond to what's claimed as reality in the words. Yet Floquenbeam had admitted they know nothing about Domer's history at all, and here you are asking him to help you out in understanding the mess he has precipitated. Do either of you have any handle on this at all from a standpoint of being uninvolved but otherwise informed admins? Or are you just fucking winging it, with Domer pulling your strings left right and centre. I've been here 5 minutes and can see what he's all about. If 'SPA' means only using Misplaced Pages for one purpose, then he is IT. It warms my heart no end to see you to chatting about probations and when they're up, how he's not done any editting while under it, and presumably a veiled reference to what's planned when it expires. Can someone remind me here which one is the warden and which one is the inmate? ] (]) 22:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Feel free to tell Arbcom what your previous account was. ] (]) 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And my reason for doing so would be what exactly? I will not dignify such a bad faith request when editors with records like Domer's are given about as much freedom as they like in their chosen single-interest topic area. The more and more I look at his history (I've probably got through more in one day than you have in your whole editting career), the more obvious it seems that he is playing you like idiots. Are you sure he's still under probation? Have you independently checked it yet? would you even have a clue how to independently verify it? I notice you logged me as a suspicious user already. Cheers for that. If he confesses to all the times he's tag team reverted someone like Gravy on an article, all the times he's made a report to simply win a dispute while hypocritically complaining about such behaviour when it's done to him, every time he's bullshitted and fillibustered his way through a discussion simply to give the impression that he's 'consensus building' to gullible part time admins like you, or to the amount of times he's just cut and run from such discussions only to return and resume an edit war, and all the other games he's played with or without your help, then I might, just might, think about it. But we both know he's not going to do that, and we both know you aren't going to look for it for yourself, so we both know this was a joke of a request. A calculated insult at best, a pure pisstake at worst. As it is, I'm fine with being able to show to the outside world the difference between how I am treated and how he is, by the likes of you, in this topic area, on this encyclopedia. Not that I've done a fucking thing to an article yet, because you still haven't even fulfilled that simple uncontentious edit request. And that's another thing, you called me an SPA for having only done thing so far. I've been here one day. How many new editors do you really think work on more than one are on their first day (assuming as you did that I was brand new). You're a joke man, seriously. You treat everyone like shit on the basis that you can't figure out who does what, yet the worst offenders are the wolves in sheeps clothing chit-chatting on on very own talk page feeding you all kinds of half truths. ] (]) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Could it be .--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 07:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == IBAN policy discussion == | |||
| Hi. Since you commented at the , in light of ] comments there, please see the discussion here (related to my comment here ).] 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Not being bold on ] == | |||
| {{hat|1=Semiprotection of a WP page}} | |||
| I was gonna decline the ] request for protecting ], but then my internet connection crashed and you protected the page. Basically, I think it is a bit ironic to prevent people from being bold on the Be Bold page. However, that aside, I agree a 2-month protection is the correct outcome, and I'm not gonna challenge it. Just trying to tell you what I think. ]] 09:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your note. ] (]) 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Omen1229 == | |||
| Hi there, | |||
| I would like to let you know that Omen1229 has begun edit-warring in the domain he is topic-banned from: . | |||
| I know well that this type of matter should be taken to WP AE, however, I got an AE block for a duration of a month for wikistalking in connection with this user in last October, and that is why I do not want to go to WP AE. I discussed my edits with an administrator, and because I did not agree with everything he said ,especially about wikistalking, it resulted in me being blocked for wikistalking by one another administrator who had been a ''silent-reader'' of said discussion up to that moment. This does not make much sense, but because I did not appeal it, reporting Omen1229 to WP AE would not be a good idea on my part. | |||
| :So that I might as well include some history related pieces of diffs with your talk page made by Omen1229, even if he is not allowed to do so in principle: | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "deleted "sometimes", there are 40,100 results in google for "dowina devin"")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "+3 references for Dowina - Devin" | |||
| <small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "del repeated info")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "Name and ethnogenesis")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "manipulation, Roshwald don´t mention Slovakia in a sentence about primordialism")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "Are you kidding? This article is about SLOVAKS, not about nationalistic issues")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */ new section")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "/* Slovak genetic background */")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 484492312 by ] (]) source was not removal")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "Slavic mythology")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "The statue of Svatopluk")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "")</small> | |||
| # <small>(edit summary: "The statue of Svatopluk")</small> | |||
| I suggest you take a decision about the fact that whether Omen1229 is in violation of topic-ban by making these edits ,or isn't.--] (]) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have topic-banning edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history. I edit only article about ]. So what is problem? --] (]) 12:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Future Perfect said to Omen1229 on 22 November 2011, "I am therefore topic-banning you from all edits relating to Slovak-Historian history for a period of six months." I think Omen1229 should consider the ] article to be covered by his topic ban. That article mentions Hungary throughout, so his edits there inevitably are connected to Slovakian-Hungarian history. I also notice by Omen1229, which looks to be a purely nationalistic edit in service of the theory of continuity of Slovak identity. The edit removes a perfectly good quote from an academic source (a 2006 publication by Cambridge university Press) which claims that the national continuity is unlikely. Omen1229 made another edit which specifically mentions Hungary. ] (]) 16:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is strange and worrying, if article about Slovaks, especially Name and ethnogenesis is for you "Slovak-Hungarian nationalist struggles". About my : In the first sentence ] mentioned Slovak-Hungarian nationalist struggles and in another sentence mentioned "Slovak-Historian history". This is clear that he thought "Slovak-Hungarian history". | |||
| :::: ''I also notice this edit by Omen1229, which looks to be a purely nationalistic edit in service of the theory of continuity of Slovak identity.'' > See again, I didn´t remove an source. | |||
| ::::''Omen1229 made another edit which specifically mentions Hungary.'' > This is my '''big''' mistake, because I quoted name H*****y up to three times. Sorry. --] (]) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Omen1229, since you agree that you mentioned Hungary in one of your edits, I take it that you are agreeing with my proposal to avoid ]? You are an editor who tends to favor the Slovak POV, and you are editing an article that mentions the Slovaks' history with Hungarians. I am afraid if you continue, you are risking a block. This is a black-and-white issue so far as I can see. Admins are allowed to widen your ban if they feel that you are engaged in nationalistic editing, under the provisions of ]. It is better if you will move to other articles. I can make suggestions if you want. ] (]) 18:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''Omen1229, since you agree that you mentioned Hungary in one of your edits'' > Yes, but this my edit in talk page is not controversial connection between Slovak-Hungarian history, but I agree it was my fault. I try to avoid Slovak-Hungarian history articles and I see nothing wrong if I want to edit article about Slovakia, because I´m from Slovakia. See ] article again and maybe you will see what is nonneutral POV and who want to create neutral article.--] (]) 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have left a warning on your user talk page. Please ]. ] (]) 20:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Interaction ban violations == | |||
| Hi Ed, I do respect you as an editor, and have generally respected your actions as an admin; there have been a few occasions where you have been blindsided though. But moving on.... I have made a statement about the interaction breach at ]. Given the need to reduce drama in this area, in future when I see an interaction ban breach, do you mind if I simply bring it to your attention on your talk page for you to act upon? This might go some way to lessening drama, given that AE is simply another free-for-all-battle-everyone-until-last-man-standing like venue. Is that ok with you? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Fine with me. ] (]) 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, I shall do that thanks. About the above threat, I generally do have a problem with editors contacting admins offwiki with things for things are obviously not required by privacy, particularly when it is 10 minutes after I am emailed (without having time for responses), hence why I was a bit pissed, prob not so much at you. Anyway, hope you understand that sentiment I held, even if you don't agree with it. | |||
| ::Also, on sentiment, have you had a chance to look over my statement at AE, and my comments on my userpage? Thoughts on that, outside of an AE setting would be welcome. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, another thing, you stated in the above section that I created them. Just to advise you, I didn't create them. Refer to post by Greyhood on ] for further info. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The purpose of having a discussion here eludes me. The AE is still open for any further comments. Thank you, ] (]) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == No need for the SPI == | |||
| Hi Ed. No need for the SPI its all done and dusted. This is and it turns out that the two SPA's . I removed this , but it seems to only encourage more of the same. They have indicated that they will not be stopped from editing, so expect more socks, a lot more. Take care, --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't worry about removing comments from his talk page, however ridiculous they may be. Blocked users are generally allowed to make speeches so long as they are limited to their talk page. Usually the person making the speech is unaware that they may be digging the hole deeper (and removing the chance of being unblocked in the future). ] (]) 18:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeh your right, let them vent! Lets see who can spot the new account first! Take care, --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::It can't be! .--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] back at it again == | |||
| {{hat|1=No further editing has occurred since 29 March. ] (]) 04:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC) }} | |||
| Hi Ed, I made an edit warring report a few days ago regarding ], which you resolved by issuing a warning. Jeffrey did nothing for 5 days but has returned and immediately resumed edit warring at ]: <s></s> (oops, meant to be ). Should I file another report at AN3 or is alerting you to this continued behaviour enough? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:0.75em">– ] <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">‹]›<br/>‹]›</span></span> 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I left a warning on his talk page. What exactly is he doing on the article talk page? Is he opposed to the move? ] (]) 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not clear on what his position on the move is, but he's been warring to try to insert unsigned templates on tags placed by SchmuckyTheCat. The tags are basically <small>(this user was blocked for sockpuppetry)</small> added after the comments of a blocked sock and both Schmucky and myself have tried explaining to him that the unsigned templates aren't needed and make about as much sense as putting an unsigned template after an unsigned template added by someone else. Tags don't need signatures, basically. | |||
| ::He seems to think that if he mixes in some token 'extra' edit like adding a space in the signature of one of his previous comments or adding an extra question mark somewhere, it means he can also add the unsigned templates back in and that when he's reverted he can claim vandalism because we 'removed his edits'. I separated out his template additions from his good edits before (you can see in the history and I linked it in the original AN3 report ), but he made another edit mixing them back in again afterwards. He's not an inexperienced editor, he knows how to use diff templates, argue policy and reference past ArbCom decisions. He knows what he's doing and he knows he's being obnoxious when he mixes the stuff we've told him not to add back in again and again. As I mentioned above, I removed only the bad parts of his edits previously and he added them back in again, I don't have the good faith to do so again when he'll just turn around and put them in again, mixed in with another token edit to try to make it harder for us to revert him. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:0.75em">– ] <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">‹]›<br/>‹]›</span></span> 20:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No more lies please, Null. The diff links clearly show that Schmucky and you deleted all my newer comments. And even after I told you that I don't care about the unsigned tags anymore, you and Schmucky kept deleting all my newer comments. And.. even if I added back only the new comments without the unsigned tags, you two are still deleting my newer comments. This is clearly disruptive. You may not agree with my position, but that doesn't mean you can disrupt Misplaced Pages and delete my comments. ] (]) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You've accused me of lying multiple times now without cause. I'd appreciate if you'd stop doing so. The page history and edit summaries of Schmucky and myself tell the facts quite plainly. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:0.75em">– ] <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">‹]›<br/>‹]›</span></span> 20:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Alright. Try argue with these diff links that neither Schmucky nor you removed any of my comments: {{diff|diff=483375511|oldid=483374412}} {{diff|diff=483540026|oldid=483536619}} {{diff|diff=483609121|oldid=483604910}} {{diff|diff=483654660|oldid=483653590}} {{diff|diff=484523759|oldid=484519872}} {{diff|diff=484546339|oldid=484525570}} (and pretend that the timestamps 15:03, 22 March 2012 and 07:22, 20 March 2012 don't ever exist). ] (]) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What's the point in responding? You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge what the problem is. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:0.75em">– ] <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">‹]›<br/>‹]›</span></span> 22:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == User:NULL == | |||
| {{tb|User talk:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick#Continued reverting at Talk:Demographics of Greater China}} | |||
| == Your report at ] has been declined == | |||
| {{hat|1=Declined an AIV report}} | |||
| See . The edits of Aymatth2 are not vandalism. The two of you are having a content dispute. Consider using the steps of ]. Thank you, ] (]) 17:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Can u reconsider the request. Go thru the history of his changes please.18:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :This is for you to do. Sorry. You have provided no single diff that is vandalism. Only cases of simple vandalism or sockpuppetry should be taken to ]. ] (]) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==reply== | |||
| Hello Ed. I replied to your concern on my talk page. Thanks! ] (]) 19:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| I always wanted to ask administrators like you of you are a salaried employee of WP or a volunteer or a user like me but promoted to the rank of administrator? Will be glad to receive an answer. ] (]) 03:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Admins don't receive a salary. There's a few people around (like ]) who are employees of the WMF but also happen to be admins. Such people usually have a separate ID that they use when acting for the WMF. ] (]) 03:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == AE case == | |||
| I left a comment.--] (]) 04:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Impeachment of your objectivity == | |||
| Your objectivity in the case of ] is challenged. They are evidences that you and other administrators acted after ] of users (for example: ) whose are permanently in opposition against other users. And the result was always on the side of the canvassing users. They are standard processes how to solve problems like this - for example in the case of Omen1229 here: . Or you could also move this case to ] or ]. But for them its easier to contact biased administrators and the result is sure - liquidation of opponents. You had no effort for a deeper analysis of this case. You can react here: ].--] (]) 07:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Interpreting a topic ban is not a hard task. Individual admins can do this. I've listed some appeal options that the editor can pursue at ]. Boards such as Mediation or COIN would not be the first choice for an ethnic dispute in Eastern Europe. That is what Arbcom made their ] decision to address. ] (]) 14:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance == | |||
| == Please help over this article : ] == | |||
| I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for ]. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| my dear friend we need a little help here : kurdish people ,this guy(iranic) made the page semi-protected ,so kurds are not able to show their own sources that shows they are not indo-iranian for example : our genetis tests ,many other References, that shows we are different from persians. can you help?? http://selenasol.com/selena/struggle/kurds.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :You've made this report using an IP. Due to the current socking issues at ], I do not plan to look into this unless you can post here using a registered account. ] (]) 14:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance
I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for Hideki Tojo. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)