Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:11, 18 October 2009

Some Misplaced Pages email messages sent to me are being consumed by a spam filter. Please do not rely on using email to contact me. If you wish to leave me a message, it is best to do so on my talk page.

If you wish to start a new topic, please do so at THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Polly Toynbee edit

hi CIreland. Regarding Polly Toynbee edit, the information of her political leanings is in no way pejorative. She openly aspouses both left-wing views and socially liberal ones in the National Press in the UK. It is important that wiki gives as much informtation as possible and that it doesn't filter anything out to satisfy certain predjudices. I ask you to stop the content deletion being performed and leave my valid information in tact.

Um...

Did you have some reason for rollbacking my clerk actions here, or was this a mistake? Hersfold 15:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Complete error of which I was totally unaware. Almost certainly I misclicked "rollback" on the watchlist entry. Apologies. CIreland (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I thought. Thanks. Hersfold 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Christina Ricci

• 19:59, 26 May 2008 LessHeard vanU protected Christina Ricci ‎ (vandalism by ip range, not able to block all & blocks are after the fact (expires 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)))
• 10:59, 1 June 2008 CIreland protected Christina Ricci ‎ (Renewed identical vandalism by IPs after protection expired/ (expires 10:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)))

That was sixteen months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I have started at talk:Christina Ricci. --TS 06:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this (at least no more worthwhile opinion than any other editor). The protecting admin was not me, it was User:Acalamari so I'm not sure why you are asking my opinion but not his. CIreland (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I really should learn to read protection log expiry dates properly. --TS 17:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I wondered what that was about. A weird screen popped up and I couldn't get rid of it. Hope I didn't take up too much of your time. Serendious 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(Revert: unsourced, dubious)

I wanted to revert as vandalism, was it vandalism, it was designed to alter to a falsehood and was almost immediatly googl-able to the false information. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, obviously. Moreover, removal of unsourced potentially controversial information from a BLP is not typically counted as a revert for editors subject to a revert restriction, if that is what you are worried about. CIreland (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Yes it is, I notice although you agree with me that you did not revert as vandalism, at least you and other good editors are there to take care, so I am attempting to leave anything that although is clearly wrong, is not totally clear vandalism, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain closing edit war

A user BC opened a case about a problematic selection of reverts by a user who has already been notified of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and your closing remarks are merely to warn me? What exactly does stale mean? Can you confirm my hunch that there was a successful gaming of the system by having the user's friends come along and devert the discussion to other issues besides that of user Nableezy? You can answer here. --Shuki (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Stale means that because the edit-war was no longer when I reviewed the report ongoing blocks can no longer be justified as preventative. I did not warn you, I merely notified you of the existence of a relevant arbitration case; I always make such notifications to all parties to an edit-war who have not already had such a notification. The notification in no way implies any wrong-doing on your part; it is merely to apprise you of the full background to the topic area. CIreland (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems very odd. Most 3rr decisions either decide whether the user was in error or not and/or whether the user was edit warring or not. Granted that most of the time, a second before posting to the 3rr page, the accused will get a warning on his talk page, will back off and the edit war will take at least a 24h break (unless the user wants to commit 'suicide' which seems to occur often...) and since this specific report of 3rr was turned into a discussion and then 'stale', you are essentially advising future complaints to take this strategy of canvassing editors into a longish discussion until the complaint is 'stale'. It worked. The complaint was made and the issue was closed by ignoring it. Frankly, I was expecting much a quicker decision by admins following the 3rr page and a decision in either direction as well. --Shuki (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Shuki was expecting an admonishment or follow through on previous sanctions. I like Nableezy but he does edit in a fashion that is not OK. I brought this discussion up here.Cptnono (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A thread that may concern you is here. –xeno 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would you have a problem if we reduced the length to 'time served' as long as the editor avoid the article in question for the original length of the block? –xeno 14:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would typically make such an offer to someone I have blocked for edit-warring. I tend to simultaneously imply that participation at the talk page is expected. However, I also note that this is Vintagekits' third non-overturned block for edit-warring this year. Feel free to act at your discretion - I am going shopping so won't be able to engage in wiki-negotiation until this evening. CIreland (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm against shortening the block; leniency would send the wrong message to this editor. --John (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

arbcom enforcement

i submitted a request but messed up the formatting. another editor tried to help, but it still isn't quite right. since you were the one who notified the user in question of sanctions, could you help me format my request properly? thanks, and sorry for my incompetence. :) untwirl(talk) 19:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Book of Mormon semi-protection

That anonymous IP is back to vandalizing the text at Book of Mormon again. Could we get permanent semi-protection there? No amount of temporary IP blocking has been effective. The moment that the anon IP gets off being blocked, he/she starts vandalizing the article again. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

I have semi-protected the article for 1 month. CIreland (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see if our anon IP shows up again once semi-protection is over. Hopefully, he/she will be discouraged. (Taivo (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks!

Thanks for the speedy speedy-deletions. One day I'll have my userspace down to just a few pages. Until then, {{db-userreq}} is my favourite template.

Cheers, ~SpK 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Block of User:Captain Occam

I apologize if this is not the proper place to voice this concern. I don't have much experience with this sort of thing, but I feel that something needs to be said regarding this block.

I feel that you may have been misled by T34CH in the block of User:Captain Occam. The diffs he provided show that: (1) Captain Occam made 3 changes to the statement in question over a 24 hour period. As far as I know, this is not a violation of 3RR; and (2) In one of those changes, Captain Occam was applying the suggestions made by other users on the talkpage. He was not simply reverting to an older version, and other editors supported this change. I do not feel that this justifies a 72 hours block. Captain Occam has repeatedly requested that other editors refrain from editing this statement until we have reached a consensus, yet despite his requests, editors Aprock and T34CH feel justified in making the changes they desire against consensus. I can't speak for anyone else on the talkpage, but I certainly do not find Captain Occam's behavior disruptive, as he was simply trying to prevent changes from being made unilaterally while discussions on this statement were underway. I don't know if that makes any difference in your decision, but I would request that you please review the material again and reconsider your actions. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In evaluating the report, it is not possible that I was misled by T34CH since I did not look at the diffs he provided; I know from experience that it is wiser to simply examine the article's history and user's contributions; I only resort to the provided diffs if I can find no substance to the complaint. I drew the following conclusions when I evaluated the recent edits:

• Since his last block expired, Captain Occam has reverted seven times.
• Captain Occam is aware that edit-warring is forbidden, having been recently blocked for it.
• Captain Occam has reverted multiple different users.
• An argument of "my preferred version until consensus says otherwise" is not a valid reason to edit-war. (Not least because the same argument could be advanced by those supporting an alternate version.)
• There was no BLP or copyright issue; there was no emergency that meant the article had to reverted immediately.
• All disputants were editing in good faith and were making credibly competent edits.

I believe that the above points are more than sufficient grounds to prevent Captain Occam from editing the article for a few days. Of course, Captain Occam is free to request an unblock and so have his edits examined by a different administrator. CIreland (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)