| Revision as of 13:24, 19 August 2010 editATren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,279 edits →Michael E. Mann problems: ChrisO← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:03, 19 August 2010 edit undoOff2riorob (talk | contribs)80,325 edits →pointy: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| SirFozzie, I'm getting increasingly worried at the vitriolic attitude of some of the participants on ] (a CC BLP) and I have a strong feeling that the article is about to become yet another scene of edit warring. I've been under repeated attack since yesterday for fixing an obvious factual error by another editor - which she hasn't acknowledged - and the dispute has spread to other completely unrelated articles, apparently in retaliation. Could I suggest that - as with the Monckton article - the Mann article should be protected for a period to head off further trouble? That is probably the simplest way of defusing this situation. -- ] (]) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC) | SirFozzie, I'm getting increasingly worried at the vitriolic attitude of some of the participants on ] (a CC BLP) and I have a strong feeling that the article is about to become yet another scene of edit warring. I've been under repeated attack since yesterday for fixing an obvious factual error by another editor - which she hasn't acknowledged - and the dispute has spread to other completely unrelated articles, apparently in retaliation. Could I suggest that - as with the Monckton article - the Mann article should be protected for a period to head off further trouble? That is probably the simplest way of defusing this situation. -- ] (]) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :In my view, it has been ChrisO who has been problematic on several articles. While others have taken a step back, he has been particularly aggressive in the last few weeks. ] (]) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC) | :In my view, it has been ChrisO who has been problematic on several articles. While others have taken a step back, he has been particularly aggressive in the last few weeks. ] (]) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == pointy == | |||
| Isn't a repeat violation. ] (]) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:03, 19 August 2010
Please sign (~~~~) before you save. Beware SineBot!
 Archive Index |
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 |
Vacation
Hi folks: Please note for the next two weeks or so, my editing will be pretty much non-existent, as I'm taking a vacation. If you need to reach me, emailing me may be quicker. I've instructed the clerks to put me inactive on any new cases that come in till I get back. SirFozzie (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- And.... I'm back. Gonna take some time to get back up to speed, however. Thanks :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You have some. Jehochman 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk page
Could you re-enable WMC's talk page access? Also, I think we should clarify he can fiddle with comments on his own talk page. The sanction should apply to every other page. Jehochman
WMC
Cannot edit own talk page? ? You sure? Pedro : Chat 22:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Noticed your alteration of the block, just wanted to make sure that you intended the settings to be account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page. (My reading of your comments on Sandstein's talk page suggests otherwise; thought it would be easier to drop you this note than to dig through all your contribs to figure out if you changed your mind somewhere else). Guettarda (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks guys for the catch. I hate that "Check box to allow default activity" when we should be checking the box if its something outside of the norm (like disabling talk page access) SirFozzie (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ha Ha. Complex stuff clearly! :P Pedro : Chat 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- grumbles*... :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ha Ha. Complex stuff clearly! :P Pedro : Chat 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks guys for the catch. I hate that "Check box to allow default activity" when we should be checking the box if its something outside of the norm (like disabling talk page access) SirFozzie (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to mention that when you said, "if I put the block back to the original 48 hours and re-enabled WMC's access to his talk page under the following conditions", I assumed "under the ... conditions" to mean that you would first ask William M. Connolley whether he would abide by the conditions of his restriction and then, if he agreed, scale back the block. My agreement did not extend to what you did, i.e., simply reduce the block and ask him to abide by his restriction. I'll not ask you to undo what you did, but think that this manner of proceeding is not consistent with a predictable and effective enforcement of sanctions. Sandstein 04:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here William M. Connolley explicitly rejects your conditions. In view of this and your comment here, where you say that "if he refuses, and continues to be Point-y, then obviously it's a necessary step to stop the disruption," I ask you to reinstate my block and talk page access removal in the event that William M. Connolley continues to edit others' comments on his talk page (as indeed he has done again), or to confirm that you have no objection against me doing so. Thanks, Sandstein 11:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Michael E. Mann problems
SirFozzie, I'm getting increasingly worried at the vitriolic attitude of some of the participants on Michael E. Mann (a CC BLP) and I have a strong feeling that the article is about to become yet another scene of edit warring. I've been under repeated attack since yesterday for fixing an obvious factual error by another editor - which she hasn't acknowledged - and the dispute has spread to other completely unrelated articles, apparently in retaliation. Could I suggest that - as with the Monckton article - the Mann article should be protected for a period to head off further trouble? That is probably the simplest way of defusing this situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- In my view, it has been ChrisO who has been problematic on several articles. While others have taken a step back, he has been particularly aggressive in the last few weeks. ATren (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
pointy
Isn't this a repeat violation. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)