|This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek.
|My talk page archives
Protection of the Criticism of the Federal Reserve Page
Please be aware that the person (Volunteer Marek) that asked you to protect that page is clueless and acts to change pages to conform to him unsubstantiated view of reality. A plainly obvious example of this is that he continues to change the Milton Friedman page to the effect that Milton Friedman's opinion that the Federal Reserve should be abolished was a one time thing when in fact it was a long held belief, from at least the 1970's to the time of his death.
In this video Friedman states that Friedman gave this opinion to Arthur Burns who served as Fed Chairman in the 70's. The video used as a cite in the article in from decades after and states the same thing. Obviously it was not a one time statement and in fact spanned decades.
In the Federal Reserve page he keeps deleting criticism that the Fed caused the inflation of the 70's. That criticism is so mainstream and widespread that the cite used, is a paper in a Federal Reserve publication. Its likely the economist who wrote that paper works or has worked for the FED.
I request that you unprotect Criticism of the Federal Reserve page and further take some action against Marek. Banning would be nice. A prohibition against editing any pages involving economists and economics would also be nice, since he plainly thinks he KNOWS things when in fact he is either deluded, or clueless.
Any helpful action on your part would be welcome.18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- No one asked me to protect the article - I saw a large revert, looked at article history, and based on what I saw I protected the article so the obvious dispute could be resolved on the article talk page.
- Please review WP:DR for suggestions on how to resolve content disputes and to reach consensus. Also, remember to discuss content, not contributors. Several of your recent posts appear to contain WP:NPA violations - I will be placing a warning on your current IP page. Looking at the article and talk page history, I see my only previous edits (in 2012 and 2013) were to redact personal attacks from two IPs that were also in the 71.174.x.x range - one of which I blocked due to the repeated personal attacks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The Freecycle Network
Barek, Hi, I'm the executive director of The Freecycle Network and there are several outdated / inaccurate statements about our organization under "Freecycle" as well as the mark misuse being listed as "freecycling." I can provide links to the registered marks in various countries but beyond that there really aren't references. How shall I proceed? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Deron Beal
- As for the link to the "freecycling" article, that's an entirely appropriate link to a related Wikipedia article, and appropriately belongs in the "See also" section as a related subject.
- For outdated content, the material you are blanking is all sourced to third-party reliable sources. If that content is outdated, you will need new sources - it's related to our site policy on verifiability, which states (in part): "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there BAREK, from Portugal,
situation seemingly out of control, and it used to be much worse. This Colombian IP used to be User:Xxxx693 and also User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca. Several users (not just me) told him politely that "Quique Flores" sufficed as name for this WP and that he was wrong (please see more details in Mr. Flores' talkpage and in Xxxx's one). The result? Attacks to me and just myself, personal - vile as can be at that! - or just "tactic" (i.e. destroying the user/talk page, I used to be User:AlwaysLearning, have been here for almost nine years).
Now, this "person" seems to be more calm, only insults me through the edit summaries, much appreciated (and now, maybe, he will also call me a crybaby for this message I now send you, like he did so many times in the past). Happy editing. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't realize you wanted a reply. Thanks for pointing me to the history - I hadn't been aware that the disruption had been ongoing for so long. I have the article on my watchlist now, and will protect the article as needed if the disruption resumes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Make that "double thanks". --188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Recently, there has been a group of IP adresses that have only been seen on select articles with the intention of vandalizing them with very minute, discreet edits, such as date changes. I believe this is only one editor who has a lot of free time on his or her hands, and wishes to compromise the quality of Wikipedia. This IP editor (hopper) is persistent, has likely been vandalizing Wikipedia for years, and has publicly stated his or her intentions here, enraging another good samaritan, User:Tom Danson. I filed a report concerning the IP hopping. The only solution that has been taken is the WP:S-P bandaid on some of the related articles of Utica, New York which is good, but only slows the hemorrhage. Please help, because the only solution I see is a full-blown range block. How this can be accomplished, I'm not entirely sure, but I know I can provide you with the pertinent information needed to help bring this years-long issue to rest. Buffaboy talk 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with a range block is it can impact a large number of innocent editors in addition to the vandal. If you have a list of the IP numbers involved, I can look at how big of a range would be required and review edits by other IPs within that range to see how extensive of an impact such a range block might cause. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try and compile a list. Buffaboy talk 22:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I saw there was at least a partial list in the ANI report - from that, it looks like multiple ranges may be involved. I'll need to review each range separately to see if range blocks are possible without causing secondary disruption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Update I saw the bombshell (at least to me) you dropped that an IP is registered to a government entity?
- In the meantime I am scouring through these articles and collecting IPs to help make this as seamless as possible. Buffaboy talk 22:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was surprised to see that too, so I checked a second tool to verify. But, just because it's a city IP address, doesn't mean it is a city employee. If they make public wifi available in city government buildings, then it could be anyone who happened to be in one of those buildings at the time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I see.
- Well, my audit is done, and I believe I have the list right here. You'll find that there is a huge correlation with the 32.xxx IPs and the corresponding edits in that they all seem to have the same tone using words like "grammar," "spelling," and minor fix to try and fool editors that they are insignificant edits. If someone doesn't recognize the IPs they could take the summaries as face value and not check the diff. He uses the same edit summaries like this, this, and here. The guy has a brand.
- The 67.xxx range seems to be neutral as far as vandal activity goes.
- I caught him in the act too on Utica Memorial Auditorium since I last contacted you.
- A bonus, though the user hasn’t edited in a long time, I am extremely suspicious of him or her: User:CutThruTheNoise. Buffaboy talk 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- After a review, I don't believe a range block is possible in this situation. Most of those IPs are managed by AT&T wireless; blocking those would have a large impact to other uninvolved editors. Unfortunately, this means blocking one at a time as they are spotted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Man that sucks. The guy think's he's unstoppable, so he'll see this as a "win". Honestly, I have seen similar material on Google that sounds like it was produced by him, so he's probably a hermit who spends his life trolling and vandalizing forums and WP. Fortunately, he only edits on specific Utica-related articles, with the big ones semi-protected for a while. Too bad you can't ban UUIDs. Buffaboy talk 20:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)