Jump to content

User talk:Toddst1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 89: Line 89:
:*[[User: 212.183.128.212]] (19 February 2013 – 20:31 to 22:04)
:*[[User: 212.183.128.212]] (19 February 2013 – 20:31 to 22:04)
:[[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 07:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:[[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 07:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

== Juan Manuel de Rosas ==

The RfC in [[Juan Manuel de Rosas]] is still ongoing. Under the suggestion of a neutral editor I attempted to edit the article. Unfortunately my edits were either removed or changed by the other two editors involved in the discussion. Thus I reverted the article back to the last stable version (that is, before my first edit). Since it seems that I'm not allowed to edit the article, neither should them until the RfC is over. I'd like to ask you to protect the article again and keep it in the previous stable version. Thank you, --[[User:Lecen|Lecen]] ([[User talk:Lecen|talk]]) 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:04, 20 February 2013


Please consider modifying lock on Qaher-313

I notice you fully protected Qaher-313 for three weeks... it does not seem like there was a particularly severe edit war there, or really much of one at all. Can you please have a look and reconsider? The page needs a lot of work, so freezing it in its present condition really doesn't help anything as near as I can tell.

As an "in the news item" with most of the clearly unhelpful edits by IP's, semi protection might make more sense. It was semi'd for around 3 days last week. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I have been tracking this page and moderating some of the warring as well as generally fixing things (as I am sure you can see). It seems that most of the "warring" is under control, just so long as we include opposing views in appropriate context. IMHO, a block on anonymous edits is sufficient. Enquire (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Protection lifted per request. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but is it possible to block anonymous (IP's) for this page? This is where virtually all the problem edits come from. Enquire (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible but I don't think it's in line with policy. Does it fit one of those critereia? Toddst1 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so. Also, WP:ROUGH seems to confirm this, more specifically Criteria for semi-protection. The disruptive edits are almost all coming from unregistered users, bursts from specific IPs, but generally from random IP addresses. Since this is very politically sensitive, I think it is appropriate to enforce editors to be registered and known to Wikipedia.
Enquire (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since neither one of those is policy nor a guideline - rather just the way shit works, I'll let someone else deal with any semiprotection. I'll restore the full per policy. Toddst1 (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not mistaken, the above is a guideline, if a rough one. The policy is here WP:SEMI. On my plain reading, semi-protection is appropriate, not full protection. Enquire (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To re-frame the request in the context of policy, per WP:FULL: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." During the time the article was unprotected, there really was not much edit warring in article space anyways (I see two examples of blanking by an IP that were reversed and that is about it). What did you see that drove the decision to lock the article for weeks? VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There continues to be an ongoing disruptive edits of Qaher-313 by both sides to the dispute and in virtually all instances, disruptive edits are by unregistered users (possibly they are registered, but not logged in for these disruptive edits). While they are usually soon reverted, this is a tedious distraction to editors. Also, it is worthy of note that there is rarely any constructive edits by unregistered users. Ergo, semi-protection, IMHO, would be appropriate. Enquire (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of reflist for Barbara Sullivan

Hi Toddst1;

My apologies! The deletion was inadvertent - I simply meant to add the new external link to her history at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I appreciate the "heads up'!!

Oafp (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the block of User:Kingminister. I do realize it probably should have gone to WP:3RRN rather than AIV, but I get kind of frustrated with that process with editors who won't even acknowledge warnings and just keep on reverting well past 4 times. Yworo (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removal of accurate ( i did have the date incorrect) information and threatening language by another user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kar..... "warned" that I would be blocked if I "vandalized" the Southwest Airlines section of the Hobby Airport entry again. I did enter the wrong date for HOU_BWI and HOU_LAS for Southwest's Airtran division. The flights begin on August 11th. This can be verified by checking the flight schedules on Airtran.com or performing a search for those dates. I do not understand the hostility of some editors. This hostile person has exhibited this type os behavior before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boko80 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Boko80. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Niisapu

Thank you for blocking Niisapu. I'd just opened a sockpuppet investigation about him/her, as User:Sum Dum Hou seems to be Niisapu's sockpuppet. I think it's a pretty open-and-shut case, but SPI has a backlog at the moment, so I thought you might want to just clear it up and get it out of the way. A. Parrot (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's also the (already blocked) account of User:Sum Yung Goose that seems to be following the same pattern.  — daranz [ t ] 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto

Hi Toddst1

Thank you for performing those blocks. There is one down side - although only 200 IP addresses are involved, Vodaphone is one of the biggest mobile communication companies in the UK (They are No 2 worldwide). If there is a complaint from them, it might be appropriate to get them to "Read the Riot Act" to DeFacto in which case we will be done with him for good. Martinvl (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks

Todd, I noticed you issued a range block per this SPI. I have a few technical questions if you have a moment:

  1. I assume that the range blocks cover User:212.183.140.33 and User: 212.183.128.135; right?
  2. I think I've asked this one before, but is there a way to tell that a particular IP is range blocked (without looking at the range block list and figuring it out)?
  3. I earlier blocked 212.183.140.33 for a month for socking. How does it work when there is a specific block of an IP that is also covered by a range block?

Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todd, Bbb23
For the record, I have compiled a list of IPs used by Defacto. This might help if Vodaphone come back to us because other customers are inconvenienced. In such cases it might be appropriate to get Vodaphone to threaten disconnection if he disrupts. (I thiunk that Vodaphone woudl rather lose one customer than antagonise a large number of customers).
Martinvl (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel de Rosas

The RfC in Juan Manuel de Rosas is still ongoing. Under the suggestion of a neutral editor I attempted to edit the article. Unfortunately my edits were either removed or changed by the other two editors involved in the discussion. Thus I reverted the article back to the last stable version (that is, before my first edit). Since it seems that I'm not allowed to edit the article, neither should them until the RfC is over. I'd like to ask you to protect the article again and keep it in the previous stable version. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&oldid=539222929"