Misplaced Pages

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Template:Archive box collapsible

Stale?!

I don't understand your action on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Fovean_Author_reported_by_User:Bobblehead_.28Result:_Stale._.29

You marked it "Stale", but it solely concerns edits within the last 24 hours (I posted it, User:Bobblehead modified it a bit). Were you confused by the fact that I noted some older diffs of similar behavior by User:Fovean Author in the report? Maybe I shouldn't have listed those, but the edits making up the 3RR violation all occurred today. LotLE×talk 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Bobblehead had actually posted a report before I did, but I hadn't noticed that fact when I made my report. Bobblehead removed my report heading, but incorporated the additional material from my report into his/hers (all of which seems fine and proper). In any case, both reports were filed in the last 8 hours, and both concern the same edits made today. LotLE×talk 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am confused by your action here. This, too was not stale. I did not contact you earlier as I did not wish to antagonize the editor in question, and I want to make it clear I'm not asking you to go back and block that editor. But I think one of us has a misunderstanding of 3rr reports, and if it's me I'd like to know. Thanks. IronDuke 21:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As another admin who patrols the board, I also must disagree with this. 3-4 hours is not nearly long enough to assume an edit war is over and in no need of action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I come off as rough, by the way. That's not my intention, as I do know from experience that patrolling that board can be a pain and is completely thankless work. Thanks for keeping it up as much as you have, and like I said, I'll see if I can help out more and thus lighten the load a bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I've been less active at 3RR lately, I used to close numerous issues there. I believe that the board has a role to play in longer-running disputes. I would tend to mark something as stale if it seems like it is no longer a live dispute, and is merely historical. When you see a case where nobody has reverted in several hours it may be not at all resolved, and may not be getting any better. It often happens that posting the issue at 3RR will cause the participants to stop temporarily. (That's not a sign that the problem is truly solved). It appears that sometimes they are looking for admin participation as a kind of 'Third Opinion' to see who is right. Of course admins usually don't have much knowledge of what's really going on but they can tell if one person is being very unreasonable. This kind of a verdict I believe is useful even if it is delayed a day or two after the original report. So a 4-hour window sounds way too short to me; I'd vote for two days. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. :) --Bobblehead 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for revision fo 3RR status

Hi I see that you have commented on my supposed 3RR violation

If you look colsely none of the reverts pointed to are done by me. Secondly the reverts shown are incorrect. Instead of showing the reverts I had done to Eios1234 and his suspected sockpuppet Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Eios1234, User:68.110.238.158 Eios1234 has deliberately tried to mislead admins by showing revisions to Special:Contributions/59.103.26.30 which I havent done at all. This has 19 intermediate edits which is not correct. I request you to change the status of my 3RRnomination from Satle to "Dismissed"(or incorrect, whatever is the term) as the Nomination is incorrect. Thanks

PS: I am well aware of the 3RR rules--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Marksell

In case he comes recruiting again. He's reverted me 3 times in 24 hours. My edits were minor word-tweaks for neutrality, and removal of a sentence. No "large chunks." If you are inclined to intervene, please discuss with admin User_talk:Henrik first. He's making a concerted effort to define a neutral role for himself. Thanks. Life.temp (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for the heads up. What I was more referencing was the report I had filed, which you also marked stale even though it had only been a few hours since the last revert. I am not, however, asking you to go and block that particular editor. For me, this has mainly been about clarifying what the policy is/should be, and I think it's been a productive discussion -- thanks for your prompt and reasonable replies. IronDuke 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Scarian 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann block

Scarian, yes Dbachmann violated the 3rr. He knows the rule, and you can probably be sure he didn't violate it on purpose. Dbachmann does a very stressful and difficult job, dealing with a large proportion of wikipedia's most troublesome tendentious POV-pushers, and for the sake of the greater wikipedia cause, should be given a break. The offense indeed merits and block but isn't worth the block; but now that it's done can you unblock him or at least change the log to time served? As you said to my stance on Enigmaman's misuse of rollback, following all the rules can be hindering so WP:IAR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairness

In all fairness, I reported a user for violating the 3RR and you banned me for personal attacks. While I won't get into how I know, he is impersonating a Marine. Beyond that, he DID violate the 3RR and he continues to revert despite the fact that two users other than myself have reverted his additions. If I get banned for personal attacks and he doesn't get banned for 3RR, sock puppetry, and edit warring, what message is that sending? Could you please go to the revision history on Remington 870 and take some action. I've warned him twice and another editor warned him once. I got banned with NO warnings, I think it's only fair. Thanks for your time. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Hunger

I think you have the wrong end of the stick. Check the diff times. I made an edit at 1301, Daniel put up the warning at 1303 so there is no question of me "ignoring warnings". I was simultaneously putting up the notice on the 3rr noticeboard and was talking on Danie's chat page at 1305. Look at user Daniel's discussion page. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, user Domer48 was also reverting another user's edits, not just mine. Please check with user Daniel what he thought was happening as you seem to have misinterpreted the events. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi, thank you for the warning note, I am always cautious not to break the rules. Still, I was engaged in this because user Boodlesthecat has been removing valid, sourced information and this behavior cannot be accepted. I have a question. User:M0RD00R was engaged in edit war with me, I have warned him about vandalism three times on his talk page, and he has removed all warnings. Is this acceptable? Greetings. Tymek (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see my name is beeing mentioned again behind my back, so I have another question: edit summaries "keep your POV to yourself" , calling me vandal , edits like "I will not accept so-called advice from extreme left-wing, anti-Polish POV-pusher as you. Cheers. BTW Nigdy Wiecej is not associated with Never Again International, read a little before you write lies , "You are left-wing, aren't you? You are an anti-Polish POV pusher, aren't you? Since when writing truth has become a personal attack?" , or user space harrasement titled "A note to a vandal" , and then repeated insertion of bogus warning , is it acceptable behavior here in wiki. I've asked Tymek to stop personal attacks and incivility against me multiple times but this seems to never end. So what do You as uninvolved user think? aren't diffs provided by me in breach with WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and if they are what can be done about it. Thank's a lot. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User Mordoor exercises unacceptable behavior, he deletes sourced information, just because it contradicts his anti-Polish POV (look here , here ] and here ) and he calls my sourced edits vandalism (sic!). He has started edit war () and then issued me a baseless warning, with a hidden threat (my patience waiting for you to modify you behavior is running low). He frequently engages in edit wars (, , , ), removing “IDONTLIKEIT” information. Creating a comprehensive encyclopedia is impossible with persons who are clearly here because they have axes to grind and who seem to savor calling other editors vandals. Hope that his actions are unacceptable to you as well. Tymek (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Again I'm beeing slandered "he deletes sourced information, just because it contradicts his anti-Polish POV". I do not know if I should respond to this. BTW what is the word that is used to describe edits when almost half of the article is blanked for no aparent reason time , and time again ? Rhetoric question. M0RD00R (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake, not intended. happens to everybody. Tymek (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe blanking half of the article THREE TIMES in a row is a mistake. That may be. But continuous ad hominem remarks You are making here yet again after being asked to stop is not a mistake. Sorry Scarian for spamming Your talk, but I don't think this discussion belongs here anymore. M0RD00R (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when edit war warning, presented as a proof by you, has became a personal attack? And please explain why you keep on deleting sourced information, calling it vandalism? Anyway, Scarian has had enough of us, EOT. Tymek (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It was explained to You multiple times, that not every information "that is sourced", belongs in Wiki. We have policy called WP:RS. Only reliable sources can be used. And if You do not get why statements like " he deletes sourced information, just because it contradicts his anti-Polish POV " are incivil, and keep slandering me time and time again I really do not know what can I do. You've been asked to follow WP:CIV, WP:AGF, now I don't know how many times, and still there is no result. You keep repeating this slander on every occasion. This behavior really must stop. M0RD00R (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Isaiah Friedman, Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897-1918, Oxford University Press 1977 is not a reliable source? I am apologizing to Scarian, this is my last message here. Tymek (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not take chunks of content disputes out of context, there are dedicated discussions that go on relevant talk pages. P.S. I had rather these sources added by you in mind . Nationalist portals and websites by Holocaust denial organizations are not reliable sources. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuous incivility reported here ,

Sorry for all this spam at Your talk once again. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How to Pass and RfA

Hi Scarian, I know you apologized for your outbreak against Irpen, but I would encourage you to take a look at my essay User:Balloonman/How_to_pass_an_RfA. Please pay special attention to the sections on "Things that Kill and RfA and "During the RfA." I mention this because your vigorous defense of Engima can be doing more damage than help.Balloonman (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Or this addition to my essay on how to nominate a candidate for RfABalloonman (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes please Scarian - stay calm, leave your initial (well written) nomination as your point of focus for others to reflect upon. Talk to me about any issue that you might have with any further comments - I will assist where it appears best to do so.--VS 23:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your latest - very well said my friend.--VS 23:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pat

Hope you are well. Just wanted to say I thought Warrington was a nice little town (for the 3 hours that I spent there). Shoreham area was nice too(need to spend more than a half day there though) Thought of you the other day while during my travels north on an East Midland train. Heading home now. I owe you an ale the next time I am through. Have a nice day! 217.46.197.234 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Blnguyen's talk page

I just caught your comment on Blnguyen's talk page. I'll leave the reason as to why he unblocked me up to him, but I just want to ask you to provide evidence of me violating 3RR. I think you'll find it difficult, because I didn't violate it. Check the article history. And just a suggestion -- I think that you should take a look at the wider context of an issue before blocking people, this is the second time that you have blocked me in unfair circumstances. Other than the obvious fact that I never violated 3RR, you also ignored the fact that another (neutral) editor agreed that my application of the VUE policy in this respect was correct (I admit I probably should have taken it to the talk page earlier, however other ongoing discussions with Kaiwhakahaere suggested that that would not be fruitful, so instead I contacted other people to ask for a third opinion). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) ... and perhaps I should also mention that prior to you blocking me I attemped to institute a "comment request" on the talk page, (although I couldn't get it to work and there were no responses to my request for help on this matter on the project's talk page), and also that I have since requested an opinion on this matter at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (that has also gone without response thus far). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough 3RR case

Hi Pat. I was looking at this case.Do you know anything about this oversight business? I am reluctant to try to handle this case in a straightforward way, without knowing more about it. Good luck if you think you have it in hand. Maybe it could be sent to ANI? EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. User:Viridae protected the page. I found out that Giovani33 is still under a 1RR restriction from an Arbcom case. I don't know anything about DHeyward, but there is a history of controversy between those two editors. User:Viridae probably has more background on the issue, if it comes up on 3RR again. Now that BLP defeats 3RR, it seems we have to totally understand all BLP issues before we can close a case on any biographical article! EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks your message. I didn't know about BLP being more important until now actually. But it's pretty subjective to decide what's bad and what isn't. For starters on that 3RR report they were bringing the dispute to the noticeboard which is a no-no. Someone should've moved it or at least ended the discussion right away. I think Gio. did "bait" the other guy (My memory fails me on username's), but he should've known better. I know nothing of the oversight business. I guess this highlights the problems that the Wiki is facing. I think we should write a 3RR Noticeboard guide for admins if there isn't one already; How to deal with reports, what's stale and what isn't (like that discussion we had before, did consensus come out of that?), BLP taking precendence like you said etc. etc. I think it could really be advantageous if we had something like that, would you agree? Thanks again for your message. Take care, Pat. Scarian 12:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could have asked DHeyward if he *thought* any of his reverts were justified by BLP. Then if he said yes, we could have asked for general comment on his claim. Of course that does slow down a response to the complaint, but maybe it's OK! I'm wary of getting into policy proposals, but if you have something in mind, give it a go. If it were just labelled a 'Guide for administrators' perhaps that would make it less controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Misplaced Pages:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

QB and E-man

QB did ask permission to post it, and E-man said "OK". I don't think there was a need to delete that. Just watching, not acting on it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a misread the timestamps. I saw a long discussion on E-man's page by QB, to which eman replied "OK". the copy/paste from the email had no "personal" or "confidential" information in it (I saw it before you deleted it). But again, maybe I misread the timestamps...be right back. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I did misread the timestamps. 22:18 QB was on Eman's page, eman replied at 22:21. Meanwhile, QB added to her own talkpage at 22:20 (assumed permission, that was virtually simultaneously granted by e-man). Sorry bout that. Although, I still say that QB has a valid case built there, and the email should not have been an email, but a talkpost. It contained nothing private/confidential, which, to my understanding is what email is for. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I hate email. I don't even have it enabled, for several reasons, partly this type of stuff. I've never been to IRC either for similar reasons. I'll leave it deleted, I have (obviously) no vested interest either way. I wouldn't be surprised if QB showed up eventually here though, just fair warning. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end, no, I didnt wait for any kind of permission. I assumed that if he had a problem with it, he would say so when I finished posting and went back to check, and if so, I would have removed it immediately. His Ok was my understanding that it was fine. In the end, he didnt request for it to be removed, and therefore your preemptive actions make you seem a little too quick with the salt. I wont repost it. I'm not about to open that giant can of worms... you can block/warn about that kinda crap and I dont think its necessary. You cannot, however, dictate what I do with my own email account. Qb | 23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm?

I dont really see anything wrong with posting the contents of an email that had nothing private within it. No email addresses were posted, nor real names. I have seen others post such contents on their talk pages. I dont believe that anything should be hidden away. I informed Engima that I would be posting the email. He did not object. I posted it. Your reasoning for salting the history was that I shouldnt post something without someone's consent. His lack of objection can be construed as consent. Qb | 23:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please be fair Qb you posted Enigma's email immediately after you posted to his talk page - that is without waiting for his response. I understand you don't want to change your !vote and that is your right but there is nothing unusual about asking !voters questions off wiki and those messages are kept private unless permission is provided. I can point you to examples if you like?--VS 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See section above... i addressed this already. Qb | 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Logic dictates that we ask permission before not assume them to take fault with it after. It's common courtesy to not reveal e-mails before asking first. This is disappointing behaviour to say the least, QB. Scarian 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This does not bode well for any argument you make regarding this incident. Please, do not taint E with all of this wikidrama. In the end, you removed and salted the post. Fine. You are free to take any measures you feel are necessary for keeping wiki working, the community thought enough of you to make you an admin in the first place. I am free to allow people who want to see the email, see the email. While I cannot post it, as you would most certainly issue preventative measures again, I see the only amicable way to handle this is to leave a message saying that those who want to see it, can. Your quick and overarching actions, however, leave me wondering if you are just "protecting your interests". None of this helps E. Dont taint him with your actions. Qb | 09:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination

nt Enigma 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scarian

Myself and a few others are looking at unblocking User:StewieGriffin!. Your thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to ask this too! Way to go Keeper76 :-P Metros (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With three administrators including myself questioning this block, I've gone ahead and lifted it. If you have any further issues with this matter, please raise it at WP:ANI in order to avoid a Misplaced Pages:Wheel war. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Need your help!

I'd appreciate it if you could get on the -admins channel, I need to talk to you about an article I'm writing. Mike H. Fierce! 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your reply

about this incident. the problem is, the page is protected just after the 4th revert.

There is no need for the user to revert again, because it is already reverted with the 4th revert, which shouldn't happen in the first place. Would you revert that one back please? If I revert that myself, then this will trigger a new edit war, because the user is now encouraged to revert all my edits and even violate 3rr. --Icykip2005 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Counting reverts

If you are going to volunteer to enforce the 3RR you need to be more careful in counting them. See . Andyvphil (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)