Index
|
||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 |
|---|
| 29 March 2024 |
For older history, check [1] as well as the archives.
Socks at Visegrád 24?
A new user, SigmaGamerBro has been white-washing the article. They were reported to WP:AIV, but it was declined because of insufficient warnings. I left a 3RR warning on their Talk page but did not revert their last edit because I wanted to be able to act administratively had they continued edit-warring. However, another editor reverted them. Then, Bongo0819 reinstated SGB's edit and added some additional white-washing of their own. Bongo is not a new editor, but they have only a handful of edits, and up to now, all their edits have been gnomish and none to controversial articles such as Visegrád 24. Could you check it out (so to speak)? Thanks. Addendum: while I was writing this, Raiden5255 has rather extensively rewritten the article (and not very well). Doesn't look like a sock to me, but I just thought I'd mention it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing interesting (CU-wise) to be found. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried to click on your your antiques roadshow youtube video but it doesn't work. If not signed in then it tells me to sign if. If signed in it says I don't have permission.
2A02:8011:EB50:0:39AC:17CB:EEB2:630B ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh interesting. I've fixed it; try this. Thanks! --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still doesn't work for me. Perhaps you need to geolocate to the USA if it's PBS and that would explain first link not working as well as this one? Just a theory. Anyway your second link has a transcript which satisfies my mild curiosity as to what it was about! 2A02:8011:EB50:0:A8B1:4C53:8D3F:9B6D ( talk) 00:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
ROPE and an unblock
Hi! A little over two months ago, you unblocked Logosx127. This unblock was came following their indef for socking (having previously edited at Br Ibrahim John). I initially did not intervene to prevent this unblock despite receiving a private message from an editor who participates on both EnWikipedia and Malayalam Wikipedia which expressed that I should reiterate my concerns regarding Logosx127 (I can post the contents of that message upon request and I can contact the sender to determine if they are ok sharing their identity). Logosx127 has returned to edit warring and adding unreferenced/poorly referenced content–exactly what got their original account blocked. I remain unconvinced that they did not participate in other instances of socking during their extended vacation, particularly since Logosx127 almost immediately reopened a debate on Syro-Malabar Church previously litigated by a sockpuppeteer that harassed me for months in 2022. I regret not speaking up earlier and request your opinion on what I should do about this. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let's see what the original blocking guy's opinion is.
Bbb23, do you have any thoughts on this?
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looks to me like Logosx127 and Pbritti don't get along, but I'm not going to do a full-scaled investigation into whether Logosx127 has done anything sanctionable, and Pbritti hasn't presented much evidence. In addition, I'm a bit hazy on your unblock. Was Logosx127 denying that they were a sock or promising they would stop socking? In other words, what were the implied conditions in your unblock and is Pbritti saying that Logo violated those conditions? If Pbritti is saying that Logo should be reblocked having nothing to do with socking, then they should bring the matter to ANI with evidence as to why. I hope this makes sense because when I reread it, it sounds a bit convoluted.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ Bbb23: Don't worry, you're making sense. I wanted editors involved in the unblock to take a look. If neither of you see something right off the bat that screams "we shouldn't have made that unblock" (not something that would need a longer investigation or ANI discussion), then I'm sufficiently convinced there isn't something worth pursuing here. Thanks for taking the time to check! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for interfering here, but it seems fair to do so since the discussion is about me. I just want to get you informed that I am not involved in edit-warring but simply trying to protect the article from an apparent attempt of taking over/hijacking of the article by the complainant. I have been repeatedly trying to bring the user into discussion and consensus making but what I have received in return is threats, bullying and complaints against me. I request you to take a look into the talk page of the article to avoid getting misled by the said user's malicious allegations. Yes, I agree that I am at times at odds with the user, but that's purely based on the article pov. Honestly speaking, I really don't want things getting this way around (I mean to say I just don't want this dispute getting worser and lengthy). So I opened many discussions in the article talk, though sadly in a futile attempt, for dispute resolution. Hope a third opinion from you or someone else who likes to offer it can contribute to a solution in the same way as it did recently regarding the renaming of the article. Thank you. Logosx127 ( talk) 18:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looks to me like Logosx127 and Pbritti don't get along, but I'm not going to do a full-scaled investigation into whether Logosx127 has done anything sanctionable, and Pbritti hasn't presented much evidence. In addition, I'm a bit hazy on your unblock. Was Logosx127 denying that they were a sock or promising they would stop socking? In other words, what were the implied conditions in your unblock and is Pbritti saying that Logo violated those conditions? If Pbritti is saying that Logo should be reblocked having nothing to do with socking, then they should bring the matter to ANI with evidence as to why. I hope this makes sense because when I reread it, it sounds a bit convoluted.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts.
He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times.
When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors.
First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets.
1. Stars678
2. JapanNipponTokyo19
3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643
4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e
5. 203.168.xx
6. 203.81.xx
7. 46.166.xx
8. Enjoy1999
Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times.
If the above measures are difficult, please set the 'VISA POLICY' pages of all countries in the world (198 countries) to allow only long-term certified users to post.
At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets.
Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator.
Thank you. Lades2222 ( talk) 13:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
Technical news
- The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. ( T313405)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
- Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Hi, I saw your edit even though I cited professional sources from academic scholars. How come? Pier1999 ( talk) 15:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps you might go back and look at the sentences you added: "and according to accademic scholars one the most influential music artist of the 20th century". "According to experts was also a politically conscious activist voice for Black America.". Do you notice any problems with these sentences? What's an "accademic scholar" as opposed to any other sort of scholar? The sourcing is good; the use of language isn't. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)