Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Sinä annoit mulle huomautuksen mutta se oli ilkeet ku enn tehny mitään pahaa. Vittu vittu! Mä oon homo ja panennn poiki peppuun --Juhko (talk | contribs) 12:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting teletoon for a while
Krj373 (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Thanks for reporting the problem. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to revert back to the version that we began with before the current phase of edits began? Currently, the page represents Ism Schism's final edits, so the page does not reflect a neutral view. Because the current page is Ism Schism's view, it may be difficult to reach consensus with him/her on changes. I feel there should be more balance in the Al Arian discussion, as there are both Hussain supporters and other bloggers, whose view is represented on the current page. The language I have proposed presents both views. I also think the way the page began before today's editing was more fair. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and allow the discussion tAt this time, I am going to leave the article as-is o play out. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tcncv- Please note that Ism Schism is not deleting well-sourced information on the article. I have left in place his view of the al-Arian matter and have only added information from new stories and the White House statement to provide the other side of the controversy. Please lock the page in a state that includes well-sourced information on both sides of the controversy - not just Ism Schism's views - if he/she continues to delete well-sourced information. Thank you!

I think you should be aware that the version of the article, as it stands right now, is not the stable version which existed before this edit warring began. Parrot of Doom 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The protected version matches the previously protected version from 19 April and substantially matches the versions from 7 April and 10 April. What version are you referring to as the "stable version"? It is substantially different from the 27 March version that preceded a spike in activity on April 1. What version do you propose? Note that rolling back to a prior version is not always done. A consensus for rollback on the talk page or significant policy violation may justify such a rollback. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's talk page. Long boring argument over the use of the long s. The stable version contained the long s. The edit war regards that, and that only. While the discussion continues (and no consensus has yet been reached), it's somewhat odd to protect the article in the state it is now in. The previous lock was so short I simply couldn't be bothered to mention it. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I am going to leave the article as-is and allow the RFC to play out. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the current version. At the end of the RFC comment period (or earlier if clear consensus is reached), the article will be updated to reflect consensus. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you warned this guy about vandalism before....when I check his list of contributions, they are all acts of vandalism (some are quite inappropriate). Maybe you might know how to stop him once and for all?? his user # is 128.84.144.255

thanks Jon the dodgeboy (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the user's history, and yes, none of the edits were constructive. However, the user has not edited since receiving a couple of warnings. If the user resumes disruptive activities we will warn the user and may suspend their editing privileges if needed. See WP:VAN for more information. If you would like to help out with protecting Wikipedia against vandalism, I invite you to become a Recent Changes Patroller. There are a number of tools available for monitoring changes to Wikipedia, reverting unconstructive edits, issuing warnings, and reporting persistent offenders to administrators. That's how I started. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tcncv. The IP you blocked for violating 3R rule edits again using different IP address. Beagel (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I took a look and it appears that the editor has now moved on. It the editor reappears and resumes disruptive editing from multiple IP addresses, a request to have the article semi-protected can be placed via WP:RFPP, but for now I think it best to leave the article open to all editors. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you don't mind, but I fixed your editnotice for you! As for that pain-in-the-arse sneaky date vandal, I've blocked him for a week and let the "rollback all" script loose on his "contributions". Having examined all the diffs that had yet to be reverted, I found 2 that might have been constructive. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fix. So would you concur that it is reasonable to undo all of this editor's edits without detailed review? Some articles have subsequent activity, so further "restore this versions" will be required. I also suspect that 66.65.81.11 (talk) and 140.251.116.91 (talk) may be previous IPs for the same editor. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And maybe 69.203.6.243 (talk). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would, yes. The sheer number of sneaky vandal edits isn't worth the time of looking for the one or two possibly constructive edits. I'll have a look at those other IPs in a minute... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, definitely the same person! Obviously a Barney fan. I'm already wondering if reverting and blocking is going to be sufficient, but we'll see what happens- whether he'll evade the block or keep going after it expires, I don't know. One to keep an eye on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I go back in history the more I wonder how long this has been going on. I'll try to find a good starting point and restore the various articles back to those points. Might lose some valid intermediate edits in the process though. Thanks for taking a look. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just investigated the history of Barney's Big Surprise and found that almost the entire history was vandalism an general crap. I deleted it and restored it with about 10% of the history but, strangely enough, more content! I'm going to semi protect it as well since there have been no valid IP edits. This is bigger than I thought! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June '09 - wow, that's a big rollback! I was only planning to go back about a month (first edit by 140.251.116.91). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'n doing this article by article- I've just done the same for Barney's Colorful World. the trouble is he makes a series of edits then switches IP, then someone else comes along and edits it so the reverting tools are useless. Madness! Rarely have I seen such a scale of vandalism that's gone totally unnoticed! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Barney Live In New York City, The 7 April 2010 version that I restored is 99.9% equivalent to the 7 April 2009 version (diff). It appears that CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs) has been keeping the vandalism at bay (no pun intended). I'll start restoring articles back to their mid-April version, the last edit by CambridgeBayWeather, or whatever date appears reasonable - unless you would prefer to use the delete/restore versions technique (I am not skilled with those tools - yet). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the delete/restore method is probably going to be quicker and inflict less collateral damage on good edits- it's taking me about 4 minutes to delete, select the good edits and restore but if you want to revert without deleting, don;t let me stop you. I'm going to post to ANI to see if we can recruit a few more admins to help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For now most of my restores are back to the February-April time frame (prior to edits by 140.251.116.91). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are we doing? I see you've reverted quite a few- are there any more or any more complicated cases? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled back edits for articles edited by IPs 140.251.116.91 and 66.65.81.11 and have started looking at articles edited by 69.203.6.243. I have not checked for collateral damage though (good edits rolled back with the bad). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well from what I can see, most of the good edits were reverts or small fixes- nothing consequential. I've batch protected all the articles (I love Twinkle!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think I'm going to look at a few more and then call it a night. I'll revisit what's left tomorrow. Thanks a lot for all your help. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Hopefully the semi protection will stop him when the block expires. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]