Barek is tired of wikidrama, and has chosen to spend more time in the real world; but may still wander back online occasionally. During this time, replies to queries may be greatly delayed.
I reserve the right at my discretion to remove uncivil comments from this page, as well as threads which are perceived by me to be disruptive.
My alternate talkpage can be used to contact me if Wikipedia indicates that this page is protected due to vandalism.
Please note: This talk page is known to be monitored by talk page watchers. This means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot respond to quickly is appreciated.
This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek.
This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek.
There's a lot to read; but an initial scan suggests this is fundamentally a content dispute (with NOR and WEIGHT concerns). I'm not seeing where an RfC has been started on the issue as yet, that would be the best next move. As to the message board, has the lack of involvement at it been brought up at ANI? I'm not sure - I rarely read ANI, too much drama, so I only scroll through it a couple times a month.
The noticeboards essentially get involvement by editors (including admins) who focus in specific areas; for example, I primarily focus at WT:WPSPAM, WP:RFPP, and WP:3RN. It sounds like the admins that may have previously monitored WP:NORN have drifted away to other areas, although WP:RSN may have some overlap, so could comment there as well as at ANI mentioning that there's a backlog of un-reviewed issues.
Thanks, Barek. No, I haven't taken this matter to WP:ANI yet. I told the editor in question that, if the wholly inappropriate editing continued, taking this matter to WP:ANI would be my next step because of the repeated aforementioned policy violations. Because the policies are clear about what we are supposed to do, it doesn't seem like this is something that should be taken to WP:RfC, and it's often the case that a WP:RfC barely gets any outside participation, but I'll keep a WP:RfC in mind with regard to this. Thanks again for analyzing it and for the advice. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Fu case
With respect, I don't think a ten-day semi protection is even close to enough. The article's history is littered with BLP violations from various sockpuppets and meatpuppets, both brand new accounts, and IPs. Also, this latest account needs blocking, for BLP violations, copyright violations, and for edit-warring (well over 3RR). Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the pages on my watch-list now. After ten days, assuming theedit warring resumes, I'll re-protect for a longer duration. Should the disruption resume and I miss it, feel free to bring it to my attention on my talk page here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by the 72-hour block on the account as well; was that an error, given the summary "Spam / advertising-only account", and should it not have been for far longer? (The issues run far deeper than that, but I wouldn't expect or even ask you to go over all of the sordid details; it would take forever and would be thoroughly depressing). Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a sock, it'll likely be discarded anyways - so a duration doesn't matter (if it does get picked up again for the same behavior, it can be blocked indefinitely later if needed). If it's not a sock (and I'm still sorting through the history), then the shorter duration is enough time to get their attention so they can try to learn appropriate behavior and adjust their behavior later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existing history with the sock accounts, and if it is the master I suspect (or even linked to them) - User:LarryTr7, I can tell you that the accounts aren't thrown away after temporary blocks. And your faith that they will learn is commendable, but simply won't happen in this case. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm still sorting through the history. Do you have a name for the suspected sockmaster or prior sock investigation? That would help accelerate things, so I don't need to track it down on my own. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I just linked it above; User:LarryTr7. There's no guarantee it's a sock, because we've seen plenty of meatpuppets, but the investigation is here. There's been an off-site coordinated attack on Ping Fu, but it had died down until this new book came out. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A favor to ask
As per this, I tidied up the introduction and made the wording more neutral. I know that it's a minor thing, but I believe that it's important to hold all articles to the same standard, regardless of their importance. Anyway, my changes were reverted by this guy (the one who added most of the fluff and "admiration" slant in the article in the first place). I changed it back but I have no doubts that it won't last. I feel that my revision is more concise and generally more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I saw your note that you're going to be busy in the real world and less responsive on Wikipedia, but could you possibly keep an eye on it and the user in question? The way that they reverted the changes so quickly furthers my idea that they consider the article "theirs", and prune it as such. I wiki-retired a long time ago and no longer have the energy or time to fight these sorts of things, and I don't want to come across as asking you to push my own personal agenda, but I feel that "guarding" an article in such a way is ultimately a very bad thing. I understand completely if you don't think it's important or that I have grounds to be concerned, but I would appreciate it if you could at least give the situation a quick perusal. I've been gone so long that I don't even remember the standard procedure for these sorts of things, so I wouldn't even know where to begin with it. --184.166.113.34 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
