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.

FYI: You blanked an entire page by reverting an edit made by another editor who had just reverted the page blank. Here's the diff. I wish Huggle was better about such things, but alas...

Cheers, and keep up the otherwise good work. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Grin) Thanks for fixing it. It seems that Huggle usually detects this, either showing already reverted or "do you really want to...", but I guess not in this case. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. BTW I think I've done it twice in two days. I catch it immediately because when it gives me the confirm action pop-up I just know something went wrong. Ah well, have a good day, and keep up the good fight. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Tcncv, I just want to let you know that I knew it was an accident and wasn't upset. I think I just made a wiki-mistake myself like 30 seconds later lol. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye out for the next time I get a warning. I wonder if I have been hitting the space bar (Huggle key for next article) and windows is applying it the a just-constructed confirmation pop-up. Its a theory. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This anon has only been engaged in nothing but personal attacks and vandalism, likely a sock of someone originally angry at Charlesdrakew. Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much vandalism is acceptable for high profile BLPs? How much do we need to justify protecting a BLP, especially during an election season? It is ridiculous to turn down protection because "only" three vandals have hit the page in a week, especially for high profile BLPs.--TM 00:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the history, I look for a pattern of abuse. If I see long-term steady abuse or a significant uptick in short term abuse that is likely to continue. What I saw here were several apparent unrelated hits from a now-blocked registered user and two single edit IPs (not counting months-old activity). I do not see evidence that leads me to expect continued vandalism. Increased visibility due the upcoming election may draw more traffic and and an increased probability of disruptive activity, but we can deal with that if it occurs.

I'll watch-list the article and add protection if I see more vandalism, but do not believe it is necessary at this time. I will add a note to th RfPP entry inviting another admin to review and override as they see fit. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we tolerating any vandalism of high profile BLPs from unregistered vandals?--TM 01:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There will always be some disruption. Most we simply revert, warn and ignore. Implementing additional measures such as protection is a judgment call that weighs the need to protect the encyclopedia against the open editing philosophy. BLPs have a lower tolerance for disruption, but in my opinion it has not reached the level that requires protection. Others are welcome to disagree. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you noticed, Courcelles (rightly) protected Jill Stein until after the election. I hope you will be more WP:BOLD in protecting high profile BLPs in the future. Thanks--TM 04:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an agenda for maintaining this page? Please remember admins can not use their administrative power to gain an advantage in a dispute. Iksnyrk (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I make it a point to keep my administrative actions separate from any opinion I might have on the subject. As for the Lockerz article, A request for semi-protection was posted to the administrator's noticeboard, and on review I noted that several recent IP editors had been using the page as a forum for posting unsourced allegations of wrongdoing about the company. I have no opinion regarding the company, but such content was not consistent with WP:Verifiability ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"). For that reason, I semi-protected the article, which blocks IP editors and new accounts, but not established accounts such as yours. If you have material that you believe should be included in the article, and WP:reliable sources to back up that material, I suggest you take the matter up on the article's talk page. If you you have differing opinions with other editors, see WP:conflict resolution. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that might possibly have been a bit premature. There had been some edit-warring, but we had all stopped to allow Daedalus to explain their objection. I normally hold myself to 2RR, so I wasn't going to make any more changes, and I also asked the IP to back off (and they did). So, on the whole, I think everything was under control. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll take another look. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I will do my part to make sure that no edit war erupts. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And thank you for asking. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~~ has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

--j⚛e decker^talk 00:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• St. John's University (New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would you consider changing this to a semi-protection? The problem atm is the socks and IPs, it appears. I understand why you'd put on full protection, but given the nature of IP hopping as is, I have little confidence that one week will do anything to get these IPs to discuss rather than force revert. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]