Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jakew (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 26 November 2011 (Reverted edits by Raidskill (talk) to last version by Secret). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Jayjg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

3rr

Has this user broken 3rr?

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert

He's also ignoring my concerns on the talk page Pass a Method talk 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated, but it appears to me that he has broken 3RR. I've warned him. Jayjg 16:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning though it was never my intention to break 3RR or attempt to act in any way contrary to good practice. (After nearly 10,000 edits over 4 years, I believe this is my first 'warning'.) The first change I made was to write an article in place of a redirect that had been done by a different editor over a year and a half ago. It was not returning that editors work to the previous version and after such a length of time I did not consider my actions amounted to a 'revert' (though I can see why some may consider it to be.) The second alleged revert was me doing what the tag said - removing the tag if I objected to it (which I did) - I didn't think that would count as a revert either! You will notice that I also tried to discuss the matter on talk, and by sending a personal message to the other editor. The other two examples were then caused by me trying to improve the article to prove it merited separate existence but being prevented from doing so by having it completely reverted by an editor as I was in the middle of improving it! Fortunately, I can report that matters appear to be headed towards a good outcome as I apologised to the other editor for any offence I caused, though unintentional, and the other editor has responded positively. A compromise suggestion has been posted on talk that appears to have support. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that one could argue the second "revert" is not a revert per se, but merely following the template instructions. In any event, I'm glad you are both working it out now. Jayjg 19:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

British jew

Hi - Get a better jew for the infobox - he has an Irish catholic father and is a self declared atheist. - You should at least get full jews for the infobox. Are there no famous practicing Jews with two jewish parents you can add to the infobox? Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Get a better jew"? Seriously? Radcliffe isn't Jewish enough for you? Why isn't he a "full jew" - is this some sort of racial thing? Jayjg 01:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jayjg, my apologies if my actions at the article may have raised suspicions a-la WP:Tag team, as someone suggested. That I'm even awake at these hours is itself exceedingly unusual. I have your Talk page watchlisted, though, and that outrageous "better jew" comment was more than I could bear.—Biosketch (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I'm sure Off2riorob will soon calm down and apologize. Jayjg 03:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MJs

Long-term disruption is I believe sufficient grounds for requesting review of user conduct and/or administrative review, isn't it? I grant that you might question my own objectivity on the matter, but I don't doubt that you probably know the polices and guidelines better than I do. Having said that, I can't see any particular reason to go ahead with some sort of action, should you be so inclined. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In theory it should be. However, the fact that he goes away for a month or two at a time, then returns for a day of disruption before leaving again, tends to make it hard for these things to stick. The problem is never "urgent" because by the time it gets to any place enforcement can happen, he's disappeared again. On top of that, he often makes bold-faced assertions that are completely at variance with reality, but said with such conviction that they confuse any reader who is unwilling to spend a lot of time digging into diffs. Add to that the fact that he now has an enabler, whose only real interest in this situation is a dislike of me, and it gets messy. Jayjg 19:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your'e probably right. I have been involved with an RfC/U of an editor who regularly disappeared for months at after receiving complaints, though, and at least that single RfC seemed to have been effective. And at least one Falun Gong supporter had engaged in almost identical "disruption for a day, disappear for a month or so" activity before being recently banned from the topic indefinitely. Maybe an RfC/U might be the best way to go, if one were filed shortly after an incident of disruption? John Carter (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of "Talk:Human Rights"

Can I ask you for a more detailed explanation of why you semi-protected this page? Per your edit summary it was due to "Persistent sock puppetry" - but as far as I can tell there was only one edit by a sockpuppet, which you reverted in minutes, and before that the last posting on the talk page was some productive discussion we had a month back in October. WP:SEMI says that such protection should be used only sparingly on talk pages and "when they have been subject to persistent disruption". I am sure you had good reason for the protection, but it was not obvious to me why semi-protection was necessary for the page so I was hoping you could fill me in on the background? Ajbpearce (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

While this particular sockpuppet made only one edit to this particular talk page, his behavior in general is to continually create new sockpuppets, add the disruptive material again and again to the article (or talk page) until it is semi-protected - see, for example, Talk:Female genital mutilation, where he did this with six different accounts/IPs before the page was protected. If all of his target pages are protected, he'll get bored and go away. Jayjg 21:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks Ajbpearce (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Off2riorob_reported_by_Nomoskedasticity_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29 here] - Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see you've now been blocked for 48 hours. I think you got off light. Jayjg 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)