User talk:Paris1127/Archives/2012/September

Archives

Maasin

Although I agree that it was 'travel guide' like section and advertising. I feel that the stores Malls should be removed also. Like BOSS (brodeth) is mentioned several times. Is there really any need for these banks to be listed. Even the school section is way over the top. Schools is big business in Maasin City. On the whole this Maasin page is a complete mess. Boopolo (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the banks and stores sections, plus telecommunications and shipping because Wikipedia is not a directory... As for Maasin being a mess, I've seen worse, mainly pages about cities/districts which are full of travel guide/directory-like information and numerous abuses of basic English grammar, punctuation and spelling. Paris1127 (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock Issues

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Paris1127/Archives/2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

202.171.164.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Drunkonjin". The reason given for Drunkonjin's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

Blocking administrator: Favonian (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: As far as I can tell, neither the IP address nor this account are currently blocked ([1], [2]). You're good to go. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unable to edit...

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Paris1127/Archives/2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

202.171.164.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Drunkonjin". The reason given for Drunkonjin's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

Blocking administrator: Favonian (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Problem solved. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I've asked the blocking admin (Favonian) to take a look, as I genuinely can't see any block in effect here. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it. Try editing now. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much... What was the problem? Paris1127 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address was blocked - but for some reason, the block didn't show up in any of the usual places. On the offchance, I tried simply unblocking the IP address - since it came back with a confirmation message, I guessed that the problem was solved. Happy editing! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I suspect that at least 4 IP addresses involved in an edit war are the same person. How do I get this investigated? The page has already seen the 3RR broken... Paris1127 (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paris1127. You can request for semiprotection of the page in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection in the meantime to prevent further edit-warring until it can be resolved by discussion in the talk page. You can also request for administrator intervention in WP:AN if the edits are disruptive.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already requested protection. I am concerned, however, that I might get blocked because I was involved in the edit war... I finally put the page back the way it was before I even got involved, at least until the page is protected. I think the edits are disruptive, as they are unsourced (my concerns are laid out on the page's talk page), but not everyone may agree. Paris1127 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean 1996 Garley Building fire? I wouldn't worry. Blocks for edit warring (which is almost always temporary and quite short) are preventative, not punitive. Admins are also not quite robotic rule-sticklers. Reverting unsourced contentious material is more a case of reverting vandalism/outright hoaxes than a content dispute, and you did try to discuss it with the other parties in question. That said you may want to bring in an admin on this one. Try using the {{Admin help}} template instead.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks a lot! Paris1127 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I suspect that 4 IP addresses that have been reverting edits (I've removed unsourced information; they just put it right back; I suppose it could be considered a type of edit warring) to 1996 Garley Building fire may be the same person. I've requested page protection, but there's a backlog. What can be done to determine if these four IPs are, in fact, the same person? I don't know how to open this sort of sockpuppet investigation... Paris1127 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wild admin appears! Paris1127, don't sweat it - you're reverting blatant vandalism (just to be sure, I double checked - the only place the phrase "Gomer Pyle Inferno" has ever been used is on that Wikipedia page and a number of slow-to-update wikimirrors), and you're therefore not violating 3RR. I'm adding a short term page protection to the article to prevent further disruption. Keep up the good work! Yunshui 雲‍水 10:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're almost certainly the same user; all the IPs are from the same ISP (Telecom Malaysia). I think the range is too wide for a rangeblock, unfortunately, but I'll ask an experienced SPI admin to take a look and see if they think anything can be done. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Yunshui! Paris1127 (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a final note on this; having discussed it with Dennis Brown, it's evident that blocks or rangeblocks won't solve the problem. Protection is the best way forward, but I hadn't spotted the lone edit from this user back in June, so it's possible that I locked the page for too short a period. It's on my watchlist and yours too, I'd imagine; if you see him popping up again after the lock expires, revert at will and either drop me a line or request longer protection at RPP. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Do. Paris1127 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]