Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{IPvandal|147.114.44.201}} is Factocop back again. If you compare the edits on September 1 to you will see he created an account and carried on in the same way. Thank you. ] (]) 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
{{IPvandal|147.114.44.201}} is Factocop back again. If you compare the edits on September 1 to you will see he created an account and carried on in the same way. Thank you. ] (]) 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
:I'm not seeing the connection here, to be honest. With the other IPs they were (a) very obviously in a similar range to IPs used previously by TMC, and (b) the edits were all recent (in this case the IP has a substantial edit history, including edits from the past week on more general topics). ] 09:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
== User talk:Hamish Griffin#Articles on hamlets ==
== User talk:Hamish Griffin#Articles on hamlets ==
I will do my best to speak clearly and avoid "bad language" unless you let me know that you are happy for me to do otherwise.
Unless you request otherwise, if you post here, I'll reply here (I'd suggest you watchlist this page to make sure you see my reply). If I post on your talkpage, I'll watchlist your talkpage to look for replies there.
“
Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree.
The source listed suggests that the source is in the public domain, so I believe it's fine to upload here. Make sure that you copy the source ("The truth about Egypt, By John Romich Alexander, صفحة 196 من كتب جوجل, و الكتاب في ") and provide it when you upload it here. You should mention that the image came from ar:ملف:Mohammed_Farid.jpg, and that the image is in the public domain. TFOWR18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That looks good to me. I changed the licensing tag to {{PD-US}}, because the book (and the image) was first published in the United States "before 1923" (in 1911). I'm by no means a copyright or public domain expert, so I'm also not sure if I'm doing it correctly, but it does look OK to me. TFOWR08:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, I have uploaded a picture here but the license, as usual, was a problem, that's why, the admins delete it. I have uploaded the same picture in the Egyptian Misplaced Pages and the admins there put the license for me, how can I use the picture in the English Misplaced Pages because I give up uploading pictures here? http://arz.wikipedia.org/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Rahotep_and_Nofert.jpg --Capo (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
If you took it yourself, you would probably be better off either uploading it to Commons or, better still, asking an admin at the Egyptian Misplaced Pages to transfer it to Commons. TFOWR16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No here should be fine. It was just that I thought getting an Egyptian Misplaced Pages to copy ("trans-wiki") it to Commons might be easier for you. As you've done uploaded it here, that's not an issue ;-) TFOWR12:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Time to adjust the sanctions
Hi TFOWR, I've just blocked LevenBoy for this. I think it's time to begin rolling out civility probation. Let me know what you think - I'm prepared to impose it myself now but wanted a second opinion. Also if you feel I've been too harsh please adjust the block/unblock as you feel appropriate. In an unrealted matter I also indef eblocked Fatocop and Blue is better as confirmed socks - see WP:ANI and the Maiden City SSPi. Also there is a lot of unusual disruption popping in the British Isles / Troubles area - I believe this maybe a long term sock-master having fun. (I'm not referring to teh LB/TR SSPI case here but rather 'The Maiden City' SSPi and the Willde360 account). It's becoming close to unmanagable by ordinary means. There may need to be mass semi-protection as well as a larger more careful examination of conduct/behaviour of a large number of confirmed sock accounts (ie MidnightBlueMan, Aatomic, The Maiden city). Also it might be timely to remind users from the BISE page not to disrupt / attempt to derail noticeboard threads - the LB / TR page is clogged with off-topic counter accusations. With these points in mind I'm suggesting some ancillary editing restrictions in the BI probationary area (on an individual basis only and only when an account shows continuous disregard for site policy): 1)Civility Parole. 2)Talk page restrictions (1 post per day per talk page that addresses content only. 3)Interaction action bans. 4) Revert parole in the BISE area. As the area is under probation we have these powers at our discretion BUT I'd like to formalize and agree them. I'm going to point Black Kite towards this post so he knows about it--Cailil20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I find the block worrying. Levenboys rude comment was out of line, but such a block should have been done by an uninvolved admin, levenboy had commented on Calils talkpage just moments before the block about going to ANI. I also find these proposals for draconian enforcement such as talk page restrictions troubling. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
How am I "involved" my only interactions with any of you are purely administrative and have been. Also I have been warning both 'sides'. Using term "involved" must be backed-up with evidence. Secondly you infer that LB was going to ANi about me - that is not my impression - also I would have no problem with that bloock being reviewed. If LB b wants that all he has to do is request unblock--Cailil20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I know your block was related to his comments and i agree the comments were unacceptable, i never use language like that on here. You were not involved in the specific issue he was blocked for, but it was right after his comment on your talk page where he was talking about your actions. I simply believe in all such cases it would be better to be handled by another Admin after that sort of interaction. Ive not said the block was unjustified, it was just the timing that worried me. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
LB's comment to me about an appropriate warning given to another editor doesn't preclude me from taking action in this area or with him. It doesn't make me involved - per WP:INVOLVED--Cailil22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact LevenBoy has not requested an unblock shows he probably thinks it was justified and knows it will be denied. I was not trying to say it was against the rules for you to block him, sorry if it came across that way. It was just my opinion that it would have been better for someone else to have done it after the message hed left on your talk page just moments before. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If I felt my judgement was clouded BW I wouldn't have done it - the fact is I have unfortunately had to deal with far worse so LB's comment didn't affect my judgement. The block has been reviewed by other admins and was extended (talk page access revoked by LessHeard vanU) if anyone else thought I was wrong they would unblock--Cailil14:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the proposals are less than ideal. I don't feel we've been left with much choice, however. "Blue is better" was pretty much the last straw for me, and Triton Rocker and LevenBoy both seem to have interaction issues that aren't being solved. TFOWR20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely no objection to a civility probation scheme. As you saw, I'd warned LevenBoy previously, having had to snip a comment. Amazingly, LevenBoy anticipated the comment being problematic and even mentioned snipping in the comment!
I've been following both SPI reports, and saw that the "The Maiden City" had been closed with several socks identified and blocked. Very disappointing.
I've tended to focus on solely BISE, and let editors do as they wish elsewhere. Recently I've been more involvd at Talk:Ireland and Template talk:British Isles, and I've seen the problems outside BISE. These are all part and parcel of the same issue, so, again, I think you're correct.
Regarding your 1,2,3,4 points - I'm broadly in agreement, 2 will be ll be a tough one to argue for however. I've had no end of difficulty trying to get people focussed on policy, precedent, diffs, links. People want to <ahem> chat. It's been suggested that we run BISE like an RFC for each issue - that may be the only way it works. I've been "structuring discussions" into fors and againsts, and that hasn't been particularly effective.
Thanks TFOWR, yes they are an unfortunate but now necessary situation. I think '2' would only needed to be applied in relation to individual cases after serial abuse of the 'noticeboard talk space' and would hopefully be the very last thing that would need to be implemented--Cailil22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
For clarity though while I do see ... chatting... on BISE, '2' would really relate to ANI, AN3 SSPI RFAR etc rather than there per se--Cailil22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that'll be even harder to argue for, but having watched at least one recent SPI turn into a "BISE-night down the pub", I see the attraction. I suspect ANI would want to set their own house rules for ANI. I'm all for it, though, if we can get buy-in. It's the constant "X said something so I just have to response" that brings on the drama. I fail to understand why people can't see that stating a point and moving on is far more effective than the endless tit-for-tat retorts... TFOWR22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm I understand. The point of that one (and we can leave it for the time being) is to prevent the derailing of enforcement threads - there might be another way to do that though--Cailil22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong - I think it's an excellent idea, and I think it's very necessary. I just think it's going to be a tough sell to ANI. Then again, the best argument for it is going to be the inevitable pile-on once the discussion starts... TFOWR22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well the reason ive mentioned "the past" both @ ANI previously and on the SPIs is because i think things need to be put into context of the wider dispute, so a single incident or issue isnt taken out of context. It is like the current SPI against Leven / Triton. They both may have made the same sort of edits to the same sort of articles, all relating to the BI dispute but it does not mean they have to be the same people. Taken out of context, its easy to see how that would be very suspicious and with people calling for indef blocks for behavioural evidence alone its import to highlight that its a dispute that has been going on for years involving many editors. I dont do it to try and disrupt the process. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's not really the problem, BW - what Cailil is hoping to prevent is the hugely indented threads, consisting of reply-and-counter-reply-and-counter-counter-reply. It's similar to the problem I've been trying to solve at BISE, by structuring discussions into single points. Allowing folk to make their case is fine (you'd be OK with mentioning the past history of the BI disputes), what's problematic is when an editor replies to a point, then that necessitates another response, which in turn provokes another response... There's really no need. It's perfectly possible to make every argument you need to make, in one post, then move on. People reading discussions are a lot less stupid than they're given credit for - they can see if a later argument that references an earlier argument is correct or not. TFOWR23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Precisely and on top of that all involved would be well reminded that diffs speak louder than opinions. Nobody needs to know what anyone else thinks of them - it just leads to trouble--Cailil14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Now on ANi. Anyone else watching this should note that disruption of enforcement threads as happened at the recent SSPis and as happened before at ANi will not be tolerated. Please keep remarks pertinent be aware of WP:NOTTHEM--Cailil23:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Seen it, thanks - I've noted my endorsement in an edit summary. I'll hold off on further comment for now (hoping for an earlyish night...) but it all looks good to me. I think setting finite terms for existing and future topic bans is good, too. TFOWR23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a reply lined up for The Maiden City's IP:
Why, thank you. If you take the time to look up, you'll see that I assumed the best until I checked, and realised that you were The Maiden City, using IPs to evade your block.
...by the time I hit "send" the IP edit had been reverted, and the IP was blocked. Don't these idiots realise that this crap affects their "side"? It screws the decent arguments being made by good faith pro-BI editors, and pisses off the community. TFOWR10:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to me how TMC is able to use different dynamic IP addresses that sometimes appear to come from different parts of the UK? I note that all the recent addresses are with the same ISP - Plusnet Tecnologies
84.93.157.59 - ?
87.113.24.44 - London
87.113.26.186 - London
87.114.206.255 - London
87.115.76.201 - Derby
Previously we had:
78.33.101.58 - Telford (ISP Entanet)
87.115.87.159 - Leicester (PlusNet)
87.115.136.194 - ? (PlusNet)
87.114.2.83 - ? (PlusNet)
81.187.71.75 - Nottingham (ISP ?) - others say this is in High Wycombe, others again in France
81.149.129.5 (ISP BT Openworld)
It reminds me of an Old Case involving YourCousin which also showed a remarkable tendency to just around within an ISP's dynamic IP range (note I'm not suggesting these are related cases!) - again where the ISP was PlusNet. Is it possible that some of the more recent SPI's are showing up at PlusNet too I wonder? --HighKing (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple reasons and WP:BEANS precludes us all from explaining them all. Any sock-puppeteer could do this (rather than anything specific about this case) by access to proxies and/or different ISPs (by physical movement). If they're a hacker a zombie computer could also be the case. Basically, in some instances IPs don't necessarily give us a physical fix on where or who the real world user is at all, which is why we use behavioural analysis of edit patterns--Cailil16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've, uh, just welcomed them. I'm waiting and seeing. They do seem to have found LevenBoy quite quickly, however. I'd link to the edit, but my snazzy new diff userscript is playing up... TFOWR15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I'm not comfortable with making WP:DUCK blocks on registered editors in the BISE area (which, I guess, The Giants Causeway is). IPs with obvious similarities to The Maiden City's known IPs are fair game, though... TFOWR15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Everything happened that fast I did not even have time to notify both accounts of the sockpuppetry case, so they could mount a defence. Obviously that means they should be unblocked immediately.. O Fenian (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd definitely consider unblocking, with my abject apologies, if the SPI was solely on behavioural evidence. I'm not prepared to argue with a checkuser, however. Tnxman knows where I live... (well, they can find out...!) TFOWR15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
If "one-sided censorship" means blocking every one of The Maiden City's IP socks, then I'm guilty as charged. Obvious sock is obviously blocked. TFOWR16:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
...and I have TGC watchlisted now, so any more TMC IPs I'll pick up on. I'll need some SPI-goodness before blocking registered editors, however. TFOWR16:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I personally welcomed the checkuser to show how ludicrous the claims were, but those in authority thought it best not to entertain the sockpuppet's accusations. O Fenian (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of being accused of censorship, the blocking admin did say he was going to block with talk page access revoked to prevent further disruption but seems to have neglected to tick the box, so you could always correct his mistake? O Fenian (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
But... but... I was enjoying setting that uninformed troll straight... Cailil, if you had a change of heart about talkpage access, feel free to change the block. "I won't consider it wheel warring etc etc". TFOWR09:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:BEANS prevents me saying too much but this edit sealed the deal for me. I've got Pilgrimsquest watchlisted, and have my six-shooter loaded and my trigger-finger itching... TFOWR10:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Wah! Evil TFOWR deleted an editor! Wah! Evil TFOWR is part of the conspiracy! Wah! Evil TFOWR works for the Irish government, is responsible for the Arab-Israeli problem, started World War II, and invented jogging! IP blocked and rolled-back. I'm expecting the flak to being in 3... 2... 1... TFOWR18:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the connection here, to be honest. With the other IPs they were (a) very obviously in a similar range to IPs used previously by TMC, and (b) the edits were all recent (in this case the IP has a substantial edit history, including edits from the past week on more general topics). TFOWR09:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Hamish Griffin#Articles on hamlets
What on earth were you thinking when making this comment? Here is an editor creating articles on topics that, by consensus, should have articles. No article is expected to be perfect from the start, as this is a collaborative project per our editing policy. Hamish is being constructive here, and Kudpung and you are in fact the ones being disruptive by discouraging an editor from helping to build this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
By bizarre coincidence I've just posted on your talk page. Hamish's modus operandi is to create articles and then request that they be deleted. In many cases the articles should not be deleted (I've declined many of Hamish's requests). In others they turn out to be duplicates of existing articles. Unfortunately Hamish appears unable to tell the difference, and is also unable to tag them himself, meaning a long list of "unwanted" articles get dumped on someone else to go through, sorting out the wheat from the chaff. TFOWR22:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not something I can do right now, I'm afraid - I'm about to go offline and permissions is an area I have very little experience with. If it's still unresolved when I get back I'll start reading up on perms. Stalkers, can anyone else with a handy mop assist FD? TFOWR12:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
FD, in case you check here before PERM/ACC - Wifione (talk) needs some info: "what's your user name on the tool interface"? I'll defer to Wifione - I've read up on perms, but I trust Wifione more than I trust me ;-) TFOWR21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
...has been archived apparently without a final decision; but consensus seemed to be to loosen up the belt to where I can provide administrative assistance as needed, while keeping the direct interaction ban in place. Would I be safe to take that approach henceforth? ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Normally one or other of Grabbitt and Runne. On this occasion, however, I was advised that they would decline to provide counsel, as the matter had already been addressed. Ncmvocalist's pro-bono work vs. Grabbitt and Runne's telephone-number legal bills? Dammit, I was going to add 10% on to the bill (my "commission") and pass it to Baseball Bugs! TFOWR08:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Notes
By which I mean: an editor who knows the legal ins and outs of AN better than me.
JJBulten continues the hypocritical harrassment
Unfortunately, this editor, who claims to be paranoid and other delusions, is continuing his campaign of harassment. I find it inappropriate for him (not an admin, mind you) to be placing messages like THIS
Your recent editing history at Longevity claims shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JJB 20:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
on my talk page when, in fact, he is a concerned party, not a third-party. This attempt at bullying should not be tolerated. What makes his unconstructive, unscientific, original-research edits OK but when I revert to the status/quo consensus he attempts threats like this?Ryoung12221:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, anyone can drop a {{editwar}} template on another editor's talkpage, but it's usually only done when there's actual edit warring occurring - in this instance I can only see one revert by you. I'd suggest ignoring or removing the tag, or, better still, discussing it with John J. Bulten. I understood that some sort of mediation had been taking place? What happened to that? I see that, since this was at ANI, you reverted John J. Bulten and then he reverted you. Ideally both of you would be discussing changes and reaching consensus, which I assumed the mediation would be assisting with. If the mediation has broken down, so be it, but I'm concerned that both of you have now reverted each other. I'd recommend trying other forms of dispute resolution. I'm hesitant to protect the article, but will consider it if the pair of you can't discuss and arrive at consensus, and instead continue to revert each other. TFOWR21:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
At mediation we have filed opening statements and are waiting on our highly esteemed mediator. It is true that Ryoung122 reverted for the fourth time to the same stale edition, undoing many edits similar to those he has approved in the past, due to one or two POV differences that I advertised at talk fully several days prior to engaging in (thus the second editwar template on his talk). It is also true that my next edit was technically a revert, but it was advertised at mediation prior to his last revert as a compromise attempt that restores nine POV sentences to his preference but is otherwise a revert. That is, his revert has no compromise component and mine does. Sooner or later I trust we will arrive at some kind of agreement as to how to edit while in mediation, but this is a slow process. TFOWR, as you yourself noted, Ryoung122's use of neglected aspects (such as not mentioning his using the "editwar" template on me) is surprisingly studious and does not help the situation. And it is not helped by my temptation, per his comment above, to whip out the personal-attack template on his talkpage next (this also broke BLP). Perhaps a more level-headed editor might judge the validity of such a template? JJB 23:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I did have a quick look at your talkpage (the one that you use, not the empty/disambig one), and couldn't see any post from Ryoung122? Regardless, it looks to me as if - after a long break - the mediation is active again, and Atama had asked that you both call a halt to reverts until you sort something out. I can only echo that. I don't intend to get involved as an additional mediator - Atama is more than capable. I will, however, protect the page and - if necessary - block one or both of you if you continue to revert each other. Discuss, arrive at a consensus, then make changes. TFOWR23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Instant archiving. :) Thank you for your encouragement. JJB 23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Commonwealth Games Association is currently a redirect (to Commonwealth Games). It's quite misleading, in that the two articles concerned address a different type of organisation. And if I'm not wrong this falls under one of the speedy deletion criteria. If you require me to perform the proper protocol of reporting at the speedy deletion page however, I can do so (grudgingly). In fact that's why I decided to report here first :D ANGCHENRUI♨11:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you considered pulling out the editing tool and writing content about Commonwealth Games Associations as the answer to this problem? What more can you write over and above the 1-line of content that used to be there (q.v.)? Similarly, what can you write about the Commonwealth Games Federation that isn't about the Commonwealth Games? Do the research, finding and reading the sources, answer those questions, and you'll know the right outcome here. In either eventuality, article or redirect, you don't actually need TFOWR or any other administrator to enact it for you. You have all the necessary tools in your own toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with Uncle G - I had a quick look at the history of Commonwealth Games Association and, more importantly, Commonwealth Games Associations before I got sidetracked. The latter article was a list before it was changed to a redirect. It seems to me that a well-written list would cover both the general case (Commonwealth Games Association) and the specific cases. Either way, I don't think speedy deletion would be right here - in the absence of any content, it's probably better to at least redirect to Commonwealth Games. TFOWR12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks - Happysailor 09:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. All other Lifeboat Stations use WP:NOUN's capitalisation, so no worries. TFOWR 09:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)