Your noticeboard close[edit]
- Scott Baio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Regarding this close you made, why did you semi-protect an article over a dispute between just two editors? Are you aware of the recent background of the dispute, or the editor's (Hipal/Ronz) three-plus year history since he unilaterally seized control of the article? Did you see the editor's pleas for sanctions against me on another noticeboard just a couple weeks ago and his complete disregard to what he was told? Read Uncle G's comments; they beautifully summarize what's been happening. As you can see, the editor didn't get the response he had hoped for, so he tried his luck again on a different noticeboard (the one on which you did the close). Also, look at every thread on the talk page going back to 2018 to see who the common thread is (no pun intended). When an administrator made these block comments to the editor in 2012, I'm sure he had no idea that the types of disruptive editing behavior he so accurately described would still be occurring 10 years later. In any case, how can you justify semi-protecting an article when there's a dispute involving just two editors (one with an account and one without), in addition to knowing his editing history of the article and what he was told very clearly by uninvolved editors on his noticeboard complaint a few weeks ago? The suggestion for using the dispute resolution noticeboard is great, so why also semi-protect the article? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are there only two of you involved in this dispute? If so, the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard would be something to consider. Otherwise an WP:RFC would be logical. When I look over the discussion at Talk:Scott Baio it appears that neither side is being effective at framing the issues or exploring the space of possible agreement. DRN can sometimes help with that. When a revert war has been going on literally for years, it does seem high time for some admin intervention. I don't think the behavior of either side has been ideal, but in addition to being an edit warrior, you are also an IP-hopper. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is the consequence of you page-protecting the article; the other editor yet again falsely claiming a consensus in his edit summary, and having the gall to unilaterally remove five of the eight reliable sources from the disputed content, including perhaps the most significant one even though WP:TWITTER is clear on its usage and WP:DOB says
A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.
1 You'll see that editor also made six additonal edits following his removal of the five sources. Instead of waiting for the repeatedly requested RFC (which you also suggested) and getting significant input from unbiased editors, he decided waiting for consenus wasn't good enough. He claimed ownership of the article and this disputed issue in 2018 and should be banned from editing this article anymore. If that's done, I will agree not to edit it either, or even participate in any discussion if an RfC is started by an outside, unbiased party. I've said enough on the talk page about the issue, and the other editor has said far more than enough. You'll see threads where he talks and talks and talks, non-stop, to himself. Can you please get ask him to revert the edit and then keep him away from the article so that others who are currently uninvolved can finally resolve the matter, which began about 10 years ago? I don't care what the result of an RfC would be; whether other editors ultimately side with him or me. I just want a group of editors to look at this with a reasonable eye and decide on the best and fairest solution. But that is apparently the last thing the other editor wants because it would require him relinquishing control (ownership) of the article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)- Consider opening a real WP:RFC at Talk:Scott Baio. You can do that yourself if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm the second-to-last person who should start the RfC and I wouldn't be good at doing that anyway. I am heavily involved (as of the past six weeks) in the dispute, and I am editing without an account, which would damage the credibility of the discussion before it even begins. So, can you please get the editor to revert the inappropriate edits that removed most of the sources (based on the completely false implication of a consensus), and ask him to back out of future involvement since, as you can from his history, he has been the singular roadblock to progress in resolving the matter over the past four years. Literally every editor will know exactly how he feels about the issue, and what his positions are, by simply reading his scores of talk page comments over the past years. He constantly talks so much, even when no one is talking back, that he buries what anyone else is saying. Because of this, editors give up out of frustration and never return. I am not the only one who has said this. An administrator told him the same thing. Finally, can you please either facilitate the RfC yourself or, alternately, find another editor you trust to do it? As I said, I will not say a word if you or some other "outsider" will start it. I will completely stay out of it if the other editor will do the same thing. We need your expertise or someone else's with your ability to get this decade-old conflict resolved. Can you please do these things? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- My role on this is only as an administrator, I don't want to investigate the content issues. As an outsider, it hard even to know what people are disagreeing about. If people now think that Baio was born in 1960, it's good that is settled. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't part of your role as an administrator to help solve problems, especially long-standing ones, that will improve the project? No one has asked you to investigate content issues. This matter is far from settled. So, you won't even help to find someone else to facilitate a discussion, in which you would not even participate? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Though some admins may choose to be helpful in other ways, the things you listed aren't part of the admin role. We expect that those regular editors for whom an issue is important will apply some energy to the dispute resolution. In particular, they will do what is listed in WP:DR. As I have noted above, you have declined to open an RfC. From what I can tell, one of you wants more emphasis on the fact that Baio has changed his story about his date of birth. Except for that, it appears to be a tempest in a teapot. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- While it's disappointing that you don't want to help even in a small way, that is your choice and I'll respect that. I explained above, in detail, why I would be a poor choice to initiate an RfC, and I think any reasonable person would strongly agree with my reasons. I even offered to completely stop editing the article and commenting on the talk page if you would just do the small favor I requested.
- I am now asking that you please remove the page-protection for the article immediately. I've thoroughly read WP:SEMI and WP:SEMIGUIDE. Your decision to protect the page violates both the policy and its associated guidelines. In its "Guidance for Administrators", WP:SEMI makes clear that "semi-protection should not be used...to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes". But that's precisely what you did since this is a legitimate editing dispute between just two editors: one registered user and one unregistered. Further, the guide says that even if there was a qualifying justification for semi-protecting the page, which there isn't, "its first application should be for a short duration, a few hours, a few days or a week depending on the type of page being protected and the level of disruption. If vandalism continues after the protection expires, it can be re-added and for a longer duration." Putting aside the fact that no vandalism exists, the page protection you set, which didn't qualify for it in the first place, is for three months. That is an absurdly longer period of protection than even the maximum stated for extraordinary circumstances. Your decision instantly allowed the registered user to continue editing, while preventing the unregistered one from doing so (for three months). As a direct result of your decision, the favored editor proceeded to inappropriately remove five of eight reliable sources in the midst of an obviously unresolved discussion on the talk page. That would never have happened had you not protected the article. So, for all these reasons, please remove the page protection. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- ? Next step to be determined. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Though some admins may choose to be helpful in other ways, the things you listed aren't part of the admin role. We expect that those regular editors for whom an issue is important will apply some energy to the dispute resolution. In particular, they will do what is listed in WP:DR. As I have noted above, you have declined to open an RfC. From what I can tell, one of you wants more emphasis on the fact that Baio has changed his story about his date of birth. Except for that, it appears to be a tempest in a teapot. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't part of your role as an administrator to help solve problems, especially long-standing ones, that will improve the project? No one has asked you to investigate content issues. This matter is far from settled. So, you won't even help to find someone else to facilitate a discussion, in which you would not even participate? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- My role on this is only as an administrator, I don't want to investigate the content issues. As an outsider, it hard even to know what people are disagreeing about. If people now think that Baio was born in 1960, it's good that is settled. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm the second-to-last person who should start the RfC and I wouldn't be good at doing that anyway. I am heavily involved (as of the past six weeks) in the dispute, and I am editing without an account, which would damage the credibility of the discussion before it even begins. So, can you please get the editor to revert the inappropriate edits that removed most of the sources (based on the completely false implication of a consensus), and ask him to back out of future involvement since, as you can from his history, he has been the singular roadblock to progress in resolving the matter over the past four years. Literally every editor will know exactly how he feels about the issue, and what his positions are, by simply reading his scores of talk page comments over the past years. He constantly talks so much, even when no one is talking back, that he buries what anyone else is saying. Because of this, editors give up out of frustration and never return. I am not the only one who has said this. An administrator told him the same thing. Finally, can you please either facilitate the RfC yourself or, alternately, find another editor you trust to do it? As I said, I will not say a word if you or some other "outsider" will start it. I will completely stay out of it if the other editor will do the same thing. We need your expertise or someone else's with your ability to get this decade-old conflict resolved. Can you please do these things? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Consider opening a real WP:RFC at Talk:Scott Baio. You can do that yourself if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is the consequence of you page-protecting the article; the other editor yet again falsely claiming a consensus in his edit summary, and having the gall to unilaterally remove five of the eight reliable sources from the disputed content, including perhaps the most significant one even though WP:TWITTER is clear on its usage and WP:DOB says
I wasn't notified of this discussion.
The ip has apparently created an account Stoarm (talk · contribs), where he's followed me to a COI-heavy BLP, Lori Greiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as returned to edit-warring at Scott Baio [1], even removing completely appropriate reference cleanup. WP:AE?
I didn't realize it was the ip when I reverted this new account, so I self-reverted for the time being. --Hipal (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
New administrator activity requirement[edit]
| The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work. |
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The pain is back[edit]
Hi Ed, I saw that you had protected the article "Mosquito Coast" for long term disruption and sockpuppetry. The same guy, discussed several times before, is using the IP address 190.143.242.17 to edit several connected articles. I've been reverting his edits, again; I get the impression he thinks he'll get his way eventually. He's certainly persistent, I'll say that. Carlstak (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- How about a block of Special:Contributions/190.143.240.0/20? EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, anything that may help. Carlstak (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I've blocked Special:Contributions/190.143.240.0/21 for three months for disruptive editing as the Mosquito Coast guy. This has now been going on so long that a series of indefinite semiprotections could be more productive. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, anything that may help. Carlstak (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Axis victory map RfC[edit]
- Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
So the RfC has come to an end after 30 days, and well, no one other than the users who were already discussing the issue before participated, me and Gooduserdude agreed that the map that was removed should stay, but Shimbo and Sapphorain were against it, but couldn't decide what should replace it (or if anything should):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hypothetical_Axis_victory_in_World_War_II#RfC_on_map_in_lead
What is your opinion? -- 2804:248:f6f7:5f00:658b:becc:a353:7fba (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- As an admin, my opinion on a content matter should not be counted toward the result. You could ask for a formal close of the RfC by posting at WP:ANRFC. There is also the issue of what the article is trying to be. Is it wanting to be 'Depictions of possible Axis victory in fiction'? If so then no actual historical significance might be needed for a map. You would merely need to show that the actual map was used in one of the works of fiction. If it was put together as original research by one of the readers of the fiction it would have a harder time. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Continued edit-warring[edit]
- Liberaltarian12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Socialist Labor Party of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Liberaltarian12345 has continued edit-warring at Socialist Labor Party of America after the block ended and apparently still has no grasp about how to build consensus. See [2] and [3].--User:Namiba 15:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've left a note for Liberaltarian. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I made my point. Objectively I am in the right and I am editing the page to make it more accurate. Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- User:Liberaltarian12345, you can avoid a block if you promise to stop warring until consensus is reached on talk. Most warriors believe that 'objectively I am in the right', that is a claim we hear frequently. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)