Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:40, 9 March 2012

Sockpuppets

User:ChronicalUsual, who you banned, has actually been banned before, but on different accounts. User:Geromasis and User:FreemanSA were ChronicalUsual's original. I am 100% certain that ChronicalUsual is FreemanSA, who created FreemanSA immediately after Geromasis was banned. FreemanSA then got banned, leading to the creation of ChronicalUsual. After a quick look at the revision history of the 2011 Syrian uprising, it looks like ChronicalUsual created another account to escape his ban User:FavorLaw. Can you please address this. This person has been a constant nuisance, particularly during the editing 2011 Libyan civil war and now the Syrian uprising. I believe he uses different ips to escape bans though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Geromasis

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/FreemanSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/ChronicalUsual

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/FavorLaw

Zenithfel (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bones108 vandalism

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for blocking 'Bones108' who also vandalized the Misplaced Pages entry for 'Robot' (now cleaned up). Jpardey01 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
regarding that editor, you blocked him for WP:Long-term abuse -- did you really mean that in the sense of the page, or only because his edits were ongoing for a few months? Amalthea 11:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

LTA, VOA, take your pick. Toddst1 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it makes a vast difference! A vandalism-only account is handled with RBI. If you say long-term abuse you're implying that it's someone who is or should be on this list, someone who has been socking for years, is highly disruptive, and usually banned. Someone where the mere allegation that someone is a sock of a long-term abuser can make admins jumpy and block on sight.
From your response I read that I can really close the respective sock case page and there is nothing more I need to be looking for?
Thanks, Amalthea 14:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, I will invoke Misplaced Pages:Obscure Guideline 573. I learn something new every day. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No defense required, only trying to tie up the loose ends. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 20:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Resource based economy

Hello mister. Someone is pushing some internet group that is commercial here Looks like a recreated article made for the sole purpose of this group with only self citations no 2nd or third party stuff. It looks like a non notable internet group looking for donations or commercial promotion. What you think? Can you do something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.41.47 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello? The article was deleted previously and the same people keep adding info back http://en.wikipedia.org/Resource-based_economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.41.47 (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For this block. All too often stuff like that is allowed to slide here and it's just not right. Nformation 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Everton Song

Can i ask what the reason is you redirected this page? (in plain English not WP speak) Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No indication that the song passed WP:NSONG. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment

It would be fairly typical to say something like this and then move on with your life, with both of us eventually forgetting the IP even exists at all. So I was pleasantly surprised to see their reblock pop up on my watchlist—not because of the block itself, but because you were the one to do it. So thanks, I really do respect that you followed up on the IP as you said you would. Best regards, Swarm 04:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a dick all the time. :) Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave Camp

Hi Todd, I asked that my edits exposing who the flame throwers were be left on the Dave Camp page and protected. Instead my edits and the expose of who was behind this were removed and the true nature of the "criticism" was silenced. Can this please be changed (i.e. can you please protect the page with my well sourced edits in place)? The zealots who started the "criticism" kept deleting these inconvenient, but true, facts without basis. Reacespeaces (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As one who reverted, I disagree. Not that you need to hear me say it, but WP is not the place for an 'expose'. Our primary issue was one of length, particularly since Dave Camp is only mildly related to this controversy, much more time spent on it would lend undue weight, those interested want to use the article as a coatrack. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I make a point of always protecting the wrong version of any article. Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Falklands

Hi, The content you have just restored on the Falklands page is entirely irrelevant to the article. It also contains personal attacks. It's your decision of course but I reverted the inclusion of that content twice for good reason. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. it might be good to cast some admin eyes over that discussion, despite exhaustive attempts that discussion is just going round in circles - there was talk about closing as no-consensus (although that didn't go down well with some). Any insight you could provide to help resolve that discussion would, I'm sure be welcome. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Todd. Thank you for not blocking me. Both me and Poly reverted Keysanger's edits based on WP:TALK guidelines and WP:NOTFORUM. His message has nothing to do with the Falkland Islands. I apologize for the inconvenience, but thank you for taking the time to deal with the situation. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Todd, Thank you for restoring the Rule of law. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As you can see here Todd (), people are discussing the information above Keysanger's disruptive posting (which has nothing to do with the discussion). Removing it is the most sensible thing to do as it is making it difficult to discuss the subject.--MarshalN20 | 14:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can it at least instead be included in a collapsible frame, so as not to distract readers from the continuity of the discussion? Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Polyamorph, I have to remember you that editor MarshalN20 introduced the WotP issue in the discussion:

...The "nationality" of the settlement is particularly dubious given the actual background on the subject. A similar situation happened in the War of the Pacific article, where Keysanger kept pushing for the inclusion that "Bolivia declared war on Chile" because a series of sources repeated the same thing (I called them parrot sources as they only repeated something without providing any insight). Yet, not only did other authors contradict this idea, but actually taking the time to read the literature demonstrated that Bolivia indeed never declared war on Chile. It turned out that Bolivia had only announced a state of war in response to Chile invading their territory; so that is what, by consensus, we wrote (albeit "announcing a state of war" is practically the same thing as declaring war, a slight difference exists)... () MarshalN20, 04:13, 7 March 2012

Do you remember it now?, Should this also be deleted or only included in a collapsible frame?. Why should editors read MarshalN20's opinion but not Keysanger's opinion about the same issue?. In my opinion, the editors have the right to be informed about the course of the discussion, about the background of the given opinions and first and foremost no censorship should be apply. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Brotherhood of Eternal Love

Hi,

I saw that there was an editprotected request for this, and then saw that you'd fully protected it for six months. That's more than a little extreme for POV-pushing which started less than a month before the protection kicks in. Care to reconsider the duration? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)