Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:43, 1 June 2008

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sockpuppet claims

British Isles WP:3RR

Thanks for the notification, have commented there. Bastun 08:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK with me to move the discussion to Talk:British Isles. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment. The "dispute" on the British Isles page should go to accelerated arbitration, mediation, or Arbcom. It's apparently been going on for YEARS. There are editors who refuse to accept verifiable sources and reject all facts that don't agree with their view. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anything going to happen on the 3RR? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the "No Action" on the 3RR. I'm disgusted/disappointed/amazed. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Minor

My apologies! i had set it that way so everything didnt get auto-added to my watchlist; i have since worked out how to do that differently but never got round to changing it. thanks for pointing it out! Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Palkey

I am sorry, but I don't know why my page is getting deleted everytime. This is a personal project, and I wish to enlist on wikipedia, because of my university's requirement in this project. I am not advertising. I simply need thay of any user searches for it, he/she may know what is this. Please help me in this regard. I really need to get this done asap. Thanks. Mshabaz —Preceding comment was added at 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages records what the world at large has taken notice of. Student projects are usually undertaken for the benefit of the student, and they seldom gain the general attention from published media that makes them important for Misplaced Pages readers. If you can add reliable sources, e.g. books and magazines that have commented on the project, then we'll listen. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Respected Administrator, I am going to add reliable sources. Kindly unprotect the article. And I assure that I won't recreate until properly discussed with you. Please help me in this regard. Thank you once again. --Mshabaz (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mshabaz. Have you discovered any reliable sources that comment on the Palkey search engine? We need to know that outside publications have commented on the importance of Palkey. If you can list some of the sources here, I'll consider your request. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston, I am really glad that you are helping me out. Thank you so much. Yes, I have the following resources that are reliable. Palkey on Sourceforge, Listing and description on WikidWeb, and there is a review on Squidoo too. Please now allow me to enlist, this is one my project essential requirements. Please! --Mshabaz (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid these don't count as reliable sources for our purposes. Almost any open source project (that wants to) can be hosted on Sourceforge, so that is not a distinction. The material at WikidWeb looks to be self-published, so it doesn't reflect the views of the outside world about the value of Palkey. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops.. But any open source project cannot be listed on SourceForge. There is a panel of judges who interview why to enlist on sourceforge. And it is a hectic procedure. They investigate, looks at the code, confirm its existence and everything. So, this sourceforge source won't help? Other students' projects has only one link of sourceforge as external, and their projects are here on[REDACTED] for years. I am stuck again. --Mshabaz (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, it may not be trivial to get into Sourceforge. But I think you'll notice from other articles that being on Sourceforge isn't accepted as deserving a Misplaced Pages article. Do you have any named users? Have they published anything about their usage of Palkey in recognized publications? EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes they have but all of them are simply online in blogs and other sites. Please add my request, I will be really grateful. If I fail to do so, I will loss my project, and a great deal of effort will go waste. Please add my article w.r.t. the Ranking of Palkey reference.--Mshabaz (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Reply.... :( --121.52.146.78 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the question's been answered already. Misplaced Pages is diligent against being used by people who have promotional agendas, even those that believe they are serving a good cause. We have our article standards and we choose to follow them. Once your project has obtained general notice, as verified through publications that write about it, it will deserve an article here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking Cryptographic hash. It took quite a bit of self-control for me not to block him myself. Do you have any opinions about the state of affairs at that article? A MedCab case has been filed, but no mediator seems to want to touch it. I also filed a report at AN/I, but nobody's responded to that yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not surprising that such a controversial article would be messy. I don't know any good answer for handling that kind of article dispute in general. In one case, I know that a difficult article was placed under full protection for several weeks while another admin tried to gather consensus on the article Talk, and periodically submitted {{editprotected}} requests to get consensus changes put into the article. (A different admin responded to the requests). EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Karina Pasian

Hello! If you'd like, please follow the progress of my sandbox page for the Karina Pasian article, located here. I have a request out to my Def Jam rep for an official bio so that I have more to work with, but I've got a start on this article, at least. I welcome any comments that you might have on my talk page, please and thank you! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a good start. Be sure to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Note the part about 'two or more albums on a major label.' If Karina is really this famous, she ought to have been covered in newspapers and magazines. They have more credibility than web sites as reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk: Snakezilla and more

Could I ask that you have this page protected? Even though this particular sockpuppet account was blocked ages ago, Komodo Lover STILL uses it. Thanks in advance. CBFan (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you perhaps have a look at User talk: Gigatron, who has also being abusing it (I've just literally had to revert some edits). In fact, maybe this could be done for all his confirmed sockpuppets? CBFan (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Koov

Please consider to reset Koov's block to one month for block evasion, assuming that's what he did. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Play party (BDSM)

I reported Rividian who had ignored the 3 revert rule. You saw fit to warn us both. This user's edits have been reverted by another user but Rividian continues to ignore the 3 revert rule. I have made no further edits on this page: Rividian has made it clear that any constructive edits will be reverted by him and it seems I will be edit-warring by making them. The page has now been nominated for deletion on the basis of its damaged state. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to comment in the AfD, you can ask the other editors to look at one of the earlier versions that still contains the disputed material. If you are in a position to consult any books in the next day or two, you might be able to single-handedly rescue the article by supplying reliable sources and saying so in the AfD. In an AfD it is a valid argument for deletion to say that an article has remained unsourced for a long time. With regard to your position in the edit war, it was sensible of you to avoid making any further reverts for a little while. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan

Re: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of topic ban on User:DemolitionMan. What expiration date should go here? Leithp 07:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous AN discussion was Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#User:DemolitionMan. I looked at the terms given to the other restrictions in WP:RESTRICT. Arbcom seems to go with either one year or indefinite. The community leans toward six months or a year. I would suggest extending DemolitionMan's topic ban for another six months. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi EdJohnston - thank you for helping with the revert warrior at Komotini. I especially appreciate your taking the time to read the talkpage and see what was going on. Single-purpose nationalist editors like this can be very tenacious and difficult to deal with, in my experience. Can you offer me any advice on how to deal with them in the future? Thank you, Kafka Liz (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's always good when you can point to a consistent naming scheme that's applied across a range of articles, and uniformly to all ethnic or language groups. (This happened in your case, and there was also the Gdansk compromise). I've worked on Northern Cyprus and it never really settles down; you just have to keep explaining things all over again when new editors arrive. See WP:RESTRICT for a few examples where nationalist editors were given topic bans. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - Please accept my overdue thanks for protecting the page. It's been a big help. Thanks also for the advice and links. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3

Hi, as you may or may not be aware, I was the editor who filed a 3RR report against PeeJay2K3, the user who you gave a 24 hour block to. Thanks for your prompt action.

I am not contacting you in order to request/suggest further sanctions against that user, I was however wondering if you would mind sending him a message and giving him some advice/a warning regarding 3RR.

The reason that I ask this is that despite the 6 reverts made by that user, that led to the 3RR report/24 hour block, when I checked the article in question after a nights sleep, I found that he made revert number seven even though he was aware of and had commented on the 3RR report against him.

It seems that as long as he thinks his edit is a good edit, then 3RR does not apply to him. While I am sure that the majority of his edits are good edits, done with the best of intentions, the 3RR is there for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=211740848

thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope the situation speaks for itself. There are editors who care about the details, and like to get everything right, who may collide with others who are equally devoted to the truth but have a different opinion. Good faith on both sides in this case. This is not the first time such a thing has happened in a sports article.

EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I had no major issue with the content, infact after consideration, regarding the grammar point I was about to say that either grammar form could be correct, so to avoid conflict we should use the form that he likes. The content was never the issue, to me its just the (I am trying to avoid the word arrogant) erm attitude in which one user is so convinced that they are correct, that in their mind this takes priority over not only the edits of other users, but the rules/guidelines of wikipedia. Maybe he was correct, but I was a little disappointed that when I warned him about his 6 reverts, he thought that 3RR didn't apply to him because his edits were good edits, and this idea was reinforced when he made his 7th revert, despite there being a 3RR report against him. Anyway, I apologise for ranting about this on your talk page, at least now I have this off my chest, I should be able to interact with the other user, without any ill feelings towards him. Thanks for your time in this matter Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

arbitrarily deep

As for the Cladistics entry, in fact there were many mistakes I corrected that are specifically characteristic of mistakes made by *German speakers* in particular. This just confirms the criticism that the persons or persons who made those edits fall short of mastery of written English usage.

I wonder where you grew up; the idea that it could be OK to join an ADVERB to the adjective it modifies is bizarre: you're approving of something that doesn't even occur. I repeat, there are many points of hyphen usage on which there is wide disagreement among educated, reasonable people; what you have singled out *would not be one of them*. I dare you to claim you have repeatedly seen "a very-ADJECTIVE NOUN", etc. No, only "a very ADJECTIVE NOUN". Really, you are lacking intuition in language usage. Hurmata (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Ed.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Aee1980

FYI, I blocked 70.167.99.34 (talk · contribs), which I am fairly sure was Aee1980 trying to get around his block so that he could continue to edit war at Komotini. I'm a little fuzzy on procedure here, as to who or how I tag, and whether or not to extend the block of Aee1980, so please deal with it however you see fit, and I will observe and learn.  :) --Elonka 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I'm hardly an expert with sockpuppets, but since there is nothing beyond block evasion I would not bother (yet) filing an WP:SSP. I reset the original block on Aee1980 due to the evasion. The tags you left on both accounts seem appropriate. My guess is that Aee1980, as soon as his renewed block is over, will continue as before. That could be the occasion for a longer block of both accounts, one that could be posted at AN for review. But maybe things will turn around instead. We can always hope. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for fix on LP page

My apologies, but I don't know how to fix this, and you may care to do it.

The Logic_programming page, at the end of the first section (History), mentions Fernando Pereira (USA). However, the link is to a photographer of the same name.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.128.215 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Undid my "personal attack" at WP:COIN(??)

>Rsradford, I undid your latest edit at the noticeboard. You realize that administators patrol that noticeboard, right? You and Jack can both be blocked if you continue in that tone. Rephrase whatever you wanted to say without commenting on the character of the editor. If needed I will remove the other guy's personal attacks as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)>

I am honestly at a loss to understand this. "Jack's" confederate and fellow Rydberg cultist CarlaO'Harris attacked me on that forum in the most personal terms imaginable, to which I did not respond at all. Instead, I set out three verifiable facts concerning the direct financial conflict of interest that underlies all of "Jack's" edits to the Rydberg article. If that response is unacceptable, so be it -- but would it be asking too much for you also to delete the completely unfounded personal attack on me by CarlaO'Harris? Rsradford (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a "Rydberg cultist" and I consider application of that term slanderous. Change your language, Mr. Radford. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

EdJohnston, thanks for being level-headed during the whole "meatpuppet" thing with Sgt. Bender, me, and other accounts. You are officially cool. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (2nd)

Since you're familiar with Koov, can you please see if he's been evading the block again? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The two IPs are blocked for one month. I hope you'll check the contribution histories to be sure this is unlikely to be anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I FYI

You've been brought up in a discussion at AN/I. Just letting you know. --Onorem♠Dil 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re : COI Editor on Viktor Rydberg Page

Hi EdJohnston,

I posted,

"What an absurd accusation, and completely baseless, that Reaves is attempting to bias the Misplaced Pages article as part of some promotion campaign for his books. The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, regardless of who printed the books, he has made available in English works of Rydberg that were not available in English before, and inclusion of such works is completely relevant to readers who would like to know more about Rydberg. In fact, your polemic suggests that you personally are biased in such a direction that you would rather not have anyone reading such works, based, apparently, on your own purist interpretations of what constitutes "the historical version" of Norse mythology. Reaves' portrayals are balanced and inclusive of criticism, but if he is slanting the editing of articles, perhaps it is to counter another editor who clearly has not just an agenda, but a vendetta against both Rydberg and Reaves, and is quite clearly trying to introduce bias into the article based on that agenda.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)"

and you deleted it, saying, "Removing Carla O'Harris's comment because it contains personal attacks. Please rephrase without commenting on the editor's character."

How is the agenda of Mr. Rorik not relevant to the concerns here? He has repeatedly made swipes at Mr. Reaves' intentions, so the intentions and agenda of Mr. Rorik are completely relevant. In fact, he DOES demonstrate both an agenda and a vendetta, and that is worthy of editorial notice. I stand by my statements. If you have specific suggestions on how I can edit this comment in such a way that it tailors what you consider to be "personal attacks", while at the same time retaining the substance of the points, I am open to suggestion.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In support of this, see this quotation from one of Mr. Rorik's edits and response to my original comment : "Mr. Reaves has devoted himself to eliminating any and all references to scholarship critical of Rydberg's racial-nationalist nonsense, in order to create the false impression that this work (and by extension, Mr. Reaves' amateur "translations" of it) have some value."

That directly supports my saying that "would rather not have anyone reading such works, based, apparently, on your own purist interpretations of what constitutes "the historical version" of Norse mythology." CarlaO'Harris (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being open to suggestion about how to word your comment. I trust you are familiar with the core policy known as Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. From your previous statement (above) I'd like to remove everything which is a comment on the person and not on the content of his edits:

• We could do without terms like 'absurd accusation.' Instead, just explain why (in your opinion) the thing being attacked is actually correct.
• Using the term 'polemic' to refer to Radford's comments
• Saying that Radford has an agenda, and has a vendetta against both Rydberg and Reaves
• Saying that Radford is trying to introduce bias into the article

I assume you are not surprised that I reverted Radford's comment also, and for a similar reason. The underlying point you're trying to make will probably be more persuasive to other editors without the personal elements.

Radford arrived intending to introduce balance into a one-sided article, and it's possible things have actually gone too far in the other direction. From the article Talk, you'll notice that Jack's side of the argument is now getting some attention. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New Rochelle, New York

For the record, BlueAzure and I both believe that the user who requested full protection for this page earlier today is one of Jvolkblum's newest sockpuppets -- see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th). Much, but not all, of the anonymous-IP editing in that article appears to be by Jvolkblum. Many of the IPs are registered outside the United States and are presumably open proxies (for example, 203.158.221.227, who posted a message on this page in the sockpuppet discussion above, allegedly is in Thailand), and the edit records are similar to portions of the records of past Jvolkblum accounts. Many of the Jvolkblum edits are seemingly minor and productive (some actually are improvements to the articles). There seems to be a concerted effort to create clean-looking records for the new sock accounts. However, many of those minor and seemingly productive edits turn out to be small and unnecessary article rearrangements (making it hard to read the edit history), removal of article-improvement templates from New Rochelle and addition of similar templates to rival towns, and addition of image-size specifications on thumbnail images, all of which have the net effect of being annoying. The most damaging activity recently has been the sneaky addition of bogus references, such as in the recent Revision history of Larchmont, New York (see the edits and reversions by 203.158.221.227 and BlueAzure). Semi-protection on New Rochelle might help reduce the amount of article repair needed, but to be truly effective it would also be necessary to semi-protect related articles such as Wykagyl, New York (a neighborhood of New Rochelle), New Rochelle High School, Larchmont, Southern Westchester, and Wykagyl Golf Club. Additionally, there are a few articles such as New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York that probably should be deleted, but it's gotten hard to maintain a sensible enough perspective to evaluate them. --Orlady (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For your information, 203.158.221.227 is now a confirmed blocked open proxy. -- zzuuzz 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your most recent comments on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th). I didn't see the 7 World Trade Center edit until after my post there, and I wasn't thinking about user-talk-page warnings at that particular time. I've gone back and left a level 1. --Orlady (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently there has been a flurry of "annoyance" edits, from a diverse array of international IPs, that I believe represent Jvolkblum editing from open proxies. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flurry of apparently related anonymous (possible open proxy) edits. (I'm a bit embarrassed for the impact on the people whose hometown articles got festooned with "citation needed" templates as a result of the fact that I had logged edits in those articles.) --Orlady (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being reasonable during my sockpuppetry trial. I'll work hard to improve Misplaced Pages. Sgt. bender (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New suspected sock puppet case for Koov

Hi. In case it's of any interest, I've opened Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Koov_(3rd). Ha! (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kjngjkn reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Not that it really means much now but the duplicate entry that you removed wasn't a duplicate. They were two separate reports of 3RR breaches by that user, one at Mac OS X and the other at List of sexual slurs. Sadly, I expect there will be more breaches as the puppetmaster keeps creating edit-warring socks. So far there have been 3 in the past few hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being over-hasty. Since he is now blocked I guess I won't bother to undo my mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Okay, I made a SSP case page for Sumerophile per your advice. I also see (s)he is back as TwinkelTwinkleLittleStar, edit warring the same old tired reverts once again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Block ofBtC

Ed, please review the block at . First check the talk page for the article -- you seem to have blocked one side of the dispute only. I suggest you shorten it to time served. DGG (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with Jpgordon's unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message - apologies for the delay in replying. There are a number of reasons (I think) although I'm not completely clear with all the ramifications. Firstly, the autoblock is automatically disabled for some dynamic IP ranges - this is done by the software even if the blocking admin checks the "autoblock any IPs used" box when blocking. That would mean another registered account could take up the attack from the same IP, or the IP would be open to register a new account. The other possibility is that open proxies are being used - the IP gets blocked, but the user simply logs out of the proxy, gets a new one, and comes straight back in. Hope that helps answer your question. _{The public face of GB} 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User edits - help!

Good day. I saw your name associated with discussions about New Rochelle, Wykagyl, Westchester and I believe you are an impartial observer to the issues surrounding those articles. II feel it is important to recognize the apparent vandalism and policy violations being made by several users. Bluazur, Orlady, and to some extent HMishkoff work diligently to create a seemigly endless compilation of wiki-abusers and alleged violations, tracking every edit to specified articles and every user that makes one. The user intentions are deemed negative and the users are blocked. This structure enables the 3specificied users to 'justify' blindly reverting edits which, upon closer investigation, are acceptable, accurate and applicable. Such edits do not have issues of conflict with wiki-policies but rather, issues with the above named users themselves. There are multiple examples to support my statements to you, they merely require an objective mind to review all the facts at hand. Most recently Bluazur can be seen going targeting as many asscoiated & linked articles as possible (related to the above mentioned topics) editing info in ways he apparently favors; and working further to disect and break apart as much of these articles as he possibly can. Orlady can be seen monitoring and extraneously editing the same articles, as well as many additional articles found within the same categories. Her history shows a focus on editing articles abt towns within Westchester, for example, which she had shown no prior interest in, but which all show recent contributions from other users immediately before her first edits. Hmishkoff has a limited history but focused scope of interest against specific articles and topics, to which his edits are often to 'correct' user edits that appear to alter the information he favors. The three users show the most limited desire to contribuite to the specified articles.-210.2.128.106 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$

Re. COI report on Naked short selling about Patrick Byrne

No, I'm quite happy for the report to be closed, at least until this comes up again. Thanks for checking up on things. John Nevard (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My ANI nomination

Sorry but I have to dispute my ANI nomination. I have already addressed my points on the article's talk page on why the article fails WP:ORG, and noted the article probation of Falun Gong articles at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong regarding SPAs involved. I did not blanked the article Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong as claimed, but incorporated into the article Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China and redirected it there. The nominator Ave Caesar has a history of changing his identities (Nonexistant User) and I suspect is a bad faith nomination.--PCPP (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that one of the FLG SPAs redirected Sujiatun_Hospital to Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, so I find it quite hypocritical for them to accuse me of anything.--PCPP (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail

Just fyi. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

Hi, I think there might be two socks of a single user at User:Rajat nda and User:RajTheGladiator. What do you think? I'm not even 75 % sure, but I strongly suspect ... both are essentially SPA's who have edited UST Global. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Even peculiar users sometimes agree with one another. It is possible they are company employees just trying to be helpful. I would look for nastier behavior, a little deception, at least some reverts, before leaving a {{socksuspectnotice}}. I agree that 'Raj' is suggestive, though in India it might be the equivalent of 'Bill.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

10RR report

When a SINGLE user has made about 10 reverts (he made another one since the last report), it is quite obvious who is destabilizing the article. I don't see anything that would merit ANI or anything but a few days for him to cool down (he has had 5 blocks this year, this should also tell you something, as well as that he only intensified his revert warring after we granted him unblock after the last 3RR report for this page...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR counting automation?

Hi - in response to your comments on my talk page Since so often people dispute whether they have really made XX many reverts, it might be valuable (partly for self-defence of the admins who close those issues) to have a mechanical revert-counter. I think it could be done, though it's not trivial. If we can't do that, maybe a set of examples could be created so people are aware that reverts of unrelated material during the same 24 hours are still reverts. Yes However I find that if the diffs are properly set out one can quickly see with popups the effect of the edit, check the edit history to confirm and there shouldn't be any issues. The issues come when it isn't 4 identical reverts in < 24 hours. Counting automation won't help with edit warring against the spirit of the rule.

I think some of the issue is that editors like Kossack4Truth (thanks for responding to him while I was off-line) can be legalistic to a fault. Gaming the system whether intentionally or not or Wikilawyering. That has certainly been my experience as I have ventured into the world of 3RR enforcement over the last few days. They don't get that, while obviously it is very easy when there are 4 reverts, at least one having followed a warning, of exactly the same material within 24 hours it is too easy but if it is still disruptive and against the spirit of our policy on edit warring they may still be blocked. I can't think Kossack4Truth could hold his hand over his heart and say he wasn't. In my note accompanying the block I stated while you may not have technically violated the rule with more than 3 reversions within 24 hours, you have been edit warring against the spirit of wikipedia's 3 revert rule, ignoring the consensus on the talk page - what more does he want - an apology when I had already explained my rationale? Kossack4Truth isn't the only editor trying to be legalistic as I am sure you have found too. I also was less than totally impressed with User:Black Kite who stated (even after Jayron had reviewed my block) I disagree with this, and was about to unblock but got edit-conflicted. My take; Edit 11 was re-adding a ref tag. Edit 10 was removing a non-free image that failed policy (WP:NFCC). Edit 8 re-added the ref tag. (Revert 1). Edit 5 re-added the ref tag (Revert 2) but also removed the violating image. Edit 2 added fact tags and is irrelevant to the others. One could argue that a slight edit-war was occurring on the ref tag, but even then Wednesday Next only made 2 actual reverts as far as I can see, and was also editing in line with policy at the same time by removing the image. This despite two other users, one of whom was sympathetic with the editors stance, thought the editor concerned was edit warring.

The issue to me then is are we going to have a strictly legalistic interpretation of the 3RR always or are we going to have (as well as the lovely black and white version) Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. which I had already quoted to Wednesday Next before Black Kite went in and unblocked him. Regards --Matilda 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

SSP case (and a RFCU) needs attention..

Due to my usual goto admin being personally involved with a suspected sockpuppet I've decided upon a raffle system to pick another admin to handle week old issues. You were drawn, sorry. The cases in question are for Greg Jungwirth, prolific if only in being incredibly annoying, generally abusive to me and another editor because we did something about him so is a bit bitter over it. Anyway, enough banter, the SSP is at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Greg Jungwirth (2nd) and a RFCU at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greg Jungwirth. The IPs for the RFCU are probably stale by now but that's what a lack of active admins do to things like this. treelo _talk 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you filled in the SSP and the CU reports properly. Now we should just wait for checkuser, unless there is some current harassment that needs immediate attention. I don't see what could go stale here; you should be able to get an answer from checkuser if they agree to take the case. Your evidence that Gregory E. Miller should be included in the case looks a bit weak. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There was some attacks from the vandal on a new IP address shortly after you posting that, most likely as a result of them stalking me. The IP has since been added to both reports and blocked for 48 hours. I'm worried about staleness for the older IP addresses as this goes back to early this year for this round of reports at least. Anyway, I know the evidence for Gregory E. Miller is weak hence why he's on the RFCU, want to try and exclude them as he seems OK and don't want be screaming about him being a vandal before knowing it. Any good CU I could try and get the attention of? treelo _talk 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand checkuser that well, but I don't see how an IP address can go stale. Registered accounts go stale because they don't keep the logs forever. I notice that Thatcher just checked some of the accounts on your RFCU. If you have more questions, User:Rlevse can answer them better than I. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's me who doesn't understand checkuser that well, you're spot on with what it means for an account to go stale. I'll ask Rlvese if I get any more inklings seeing as he's no longer directly involved. As an aside, do you think if we're not going to block User:Miller killa (which completely follows Greg's MO of making sleeper accounts for attacking previous sockpuppets usually with a direct indicator to his target) can the account have ACB so at least if it does turn out to be a GJ sleeper account we can block that one and prevent any more? treelo _talk 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:IP sock block template question

If the IP is not exactly CU confirmed than the variations of {{IPsock}} should work\...none of them let you add a time value though. Somehow my brain is functionally coherently enough at the moment to remember the other possible templates, sorry :P. Glad Thatcher was able to flush some possible ones out though.¤~Persian Poet Gal 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari} 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally a tasteful Thankspam! Good luck in your new role. Let me know if I can suggest any tedious but useful tasks for you to perform. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't do fancy thankspam because a)I'm not that design-oriented and b)image overload used to kill my old laptop. I have a new one now but I still feel for those who don't. I'm happy for suggestions on things I can do to help. _{TravellingCari} 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess you should follow your interests, and try a number of things. WP:AIV is good for offering questions that improve your admin judgment. WP:3RR, where I often participate, is thought to be straightforward but offers many subtle issues. Closing simple AfDs is easy and is almost a clerical task. Closing hard AfDs requires some subtlety. I haven't gone there yet. WP:SSP is often backlogged, but that takes a fair amount of patience with technical stuff. WP:CSD is good practice but I don't see it backlogged very often. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed this before I went on holiday, thanks for the suggestions. I poked a bit at the low hanging fruit at WP:CSD but haven't been too brave outside new admin school yet. I've 'read' 3RR and COIN for some time, plan to continue doing so and learn how to help there. Thanks again _{TravellingCari} 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome 2

Hello Jc37. FYI, I have blocked this editor one week for removing cut-and-paste move warnings from other editors' Talk pages. I mention this because you have him on some kind of 60-day probation regarding moves, so this information could possibly be of interest. The details are under the block notice on his Talk page. Removal of the messages on others' Talk was also noted at the time of his previous 3RR block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. In looking things over, I'm also concerned about the possibilities of socking here. Please feel free to continue to keep me informed. Thanks again : ) - jc37 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GNU Unifont

I've responded to your entry on the GNU Unifont discussion page. --Ph9000 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Kinda busy

Well, I'm planning to try to keep up with the voluminous discussion at Chiropractic for the next few weeks, besides spending less time on Misplaced Pages and more on RL (at least in theory), so I may not have much time for 3RR. We'll see. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....

for your support on my RFA. I appreciated all the votes of confidence and hope not too goof up toooo quickly! --Slp1 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking - thanks for the note on the request for checkuser

I can't figure out how to fix my mistake either...--Gregalton (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - this appears to be fixed now, your help is much appreciated.--Gregalton (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

note

Deletion review for Cristina Cruz Mínguez‎

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cristina Cruz Mínguez‎. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for edit protected on Sahaja Yoga page

Hi Ed, you recently assisted us on the International Sahaja Public School page and I was wondering if you could turn your attention a related article, the Sahaja Yoga page. This article has been frozen for quite some time and I have made three edit protected requests which I feel should have been addressed by now. Cheers Freelion (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez article at 3RR

Hello Stifle. I believe there is strong evidence that Wtcsurvivor is a sock of Jrandi, enough to justify an indef block. Can I add this result to your closure of the 3RR issue, or would you prefer for me to enter it elsewhere, e.g. at SSP? EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Template protection

I'm not sure what the normal course is, but I've definitely seen the little locks on a fair number of templates. Actually, not that many templates are protected--only on templates used on tons and tons of articles, or on templates where there has been a lot of vandalism. Mangostar (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Marksell: 3RR

Hello. You declined to act on the 3RR I reported here: . (I left a comment there.) Since then, Marksell has reverted 2 more times. He's now reverted this one-sentence addition of mine 6 times in 48 hours, each time with no discussion. I gave my reasons for the edit in Talk here . If you don't want to block him, can you at least warn him? He belittled my 3RR warning on the grounds that I'm "not an admin." Maybe an admin reminding him of the need to work with others would help. (He did give a brief explanation after I filed a 3RR, but that's not what working with an editor means. I can't file a 3RR every time we need to discuss the article.) Thank you. Life.temp (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Protecting was probably best. I can work in sandbox, without the heat. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some new eyes would be helpful here

After noting your action in Anti-Americanism, I was wondering if some perspective might be helpful in Anti-Iranian sentiment. I am not suggesting protection, as the edit-warring and exchanges appear to be less vitriolic than at the article you protected, but the discussion appears to indicate the presence of folk with something of a grudge (or at the very least, speaking from a personal experience of the subject matter) are editing from the gut and not necessarily with an eye on keeping in line with policy and guidelines. This isn't a request for an admn; this is a request for some neutral eyes.
Otherwise, I hope you are having a splendid day, Ed. :) - Arcayne () 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

An update - I am encountering a bit of resistance from one of the contributors to the article; the fellow has his own agenda, and isn't really keen to discuss it with the rest of us in discussion. Maybe you could take a gander at the edit history and give me your take on how to proceed? - Arcayne () 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All these culture-war articles have enough in common to warrant documenting some general guidelines, maybe even policies. An example of a sound policy would be: An anti- label should follow the guideline for naming (identity) and self-indentification}. See also, words that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. Some sort of clear guideline would a small start toward a solution beyond admins playing edit war whack-a-mole.Life.temp (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, something like that would be helpful indeed, were it not for how some of the folk contributing to these articles would react to being categorized thusly. Is there a discussion occurring in regards to this topic? - Arcayne () 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no gift whatsoever for resolving ethnic disputes on articles. But take a look at WP:WGR if you have not seen this before. At Talk:Gdansk/Vote you will find an agreement on how to name certain places in Eastern Europe. Since Arcayne was talking about self-identification above, which is a naming issue, you might see some commonality. Here are a few examples of individual ethnic disputes where people have created WikiProjects to make solutions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any specific discussion of anti- terminology. I tried to start something at the Village Pump , but it didn't go anywhere. If you are interested, I hope you initiate something. Maybe more attention will produce results. There is a general discussion of culture wars on Misplaced Pages, but nothing so specific as a guideline for how to use certain terms. Life.temp (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for GKOS_keyboard

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GKOS_keyboard. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tiptyper (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3

I'd be grateful to have your support on this MfD.PJHaseldine (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw shucks

Thanks Ed, a vote of confidence for adminship is better than a dozen barnstars. I appreciate the endorsement of my conduct on[REDACTED] and it means very much coming from someone I respect as much as you. Gracias!

Incidentally, perhaps I might cave in one day. Or perhaps I'm just seeking a semi-regular infusion of flattery on my talk page. We may never know... WLU (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jackpot

Anna polly might have hit a 46-sock jackpot, but that's nothing compared with this other jackpot that Anna just couldn't resist to join in. :-) Regards, Húsönd 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why User:Anna polly was such a new account. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Allstarecho

This user you blocked is currently requesting unblocking, and there's been some back-and-forth on their talk page; any comment or insight from you regarding the discussion would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Luna. The specific change that bothered me was this one. I can't see that the word insinuated is justified under our policies, since there is no third party making that interpretation. The editor who was cited for 3RR wants Misplaced Pages to make that claim, based solely on one of the organization's own documents. The actual words of the AFA should speak for themselves, in a situation like that. We shouldn't be the ones to say what they are insinuating. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing adjudication board

Replied on my talkpage. Avruch 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

As an editor of orthomolecular psychiatry, you might have a useful perspective on this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for pointing me to the ArbCom discussion of sources, which resulted in my subsequent discovery of he reliable sources noticeboard which may be a solution for most of my problems. Somehow missed it before--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dory Manor

Ed, in counting up the votes for deleting Dory Manor, I think you missed something important: The Keeps were citing Hebrew-language web pages, the Deletes seemed to focus on the absence of English-language reference. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Yudel (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This case was puzzling, because the guy sounds like he *might* be notable. He could be more important than we can tell from the very limited sources provided in the article. I will userfy the article for you if you think you can do something with it. Hebrew-language sources might be convincing if we had editors with language skill standing by to explain them for us in considerable detail. We'd probably need a sentence or two translated into English from each one, and include that in each citation. Sources must not merely exist, they should assert the importance of the person who is the subject. When there is a language barrier, weighing up the sources is not so easy. Would you be able to assist with this? EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Close call

I don't know if referencing allegations of bias falls under libelous or contentious material, if anything it's a close call either way. I don't think that experienced editors should be allowed to edit war over a 2+ day span, most especially when the margins are this close and there are plenty of other options for redress. I respect your decision but I really don't think it's the right one. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)