Open main menu


Kraft Talk page, history of edits by people with conflicts

Hey there, I was wondering if I could ask you about your removal of this from the Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noah_Kraft&oldid=914584953#History_of_sockpuppeting,_contributions_by_people_with_financial_ties_to_Kraft,_and_contributions_by_brand_new_editors_with_disclosed_but_unspecified_personal_ties_to_Kraft).

Regardless of what you think of BC1278's involvement (and I would even be fine with omitting him from the section), there's a long history of edits from single-purpose IP addresses and brand new accounts. As well as an editor with extensive undisclosed conflict who later admitted his conflict and recused himself. This history indicates a high likelihood of future vandalism, which is why I think it's important to include this section in the Talk page, at least for the time being. Your thoughts? DaRonPayne (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, it's not your place to put a list of problem editors on the talk page. Such grievances belong on their talk pages or WP:AN. To categorize edits that have not even happened as "vandalism" is inherently hostile/unnecessary/prejudicial. Let them make the case they wish. Other editors can take their input accordingly and make their own independent assessment (like me). As stated on the talk page, even if they have a WP:COI, they are allowed to edit and it isn't your place to be the arbiter on this page.
Lastly, looking at your edit history, you seem to be solely interested in this article. Assessing the actions of others as "a long history of edits from single-purpose IP addresses" is a big disingenuous considering you're doing the same thing. Even if there are multiple accounts involved, they are not using them to claim consensus. In short, back off. Plenty of people have eyes on it and there's no need to be this aggressive toward other editors. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
If it belongs somewhere else, that's fine. I wasn't familiar with what the protocol is here, so that was partly why I was asking.
And just to be very clear, 3/5ths of the editors referred to in that section made actual, substantial edits to the page. In some cases they authored the majority of it. In others they reverted things without comment. And at least one of those editors had multiple, serious **undisclosed** FINANCIAL conflicts that he later admitted to before recusing himself.
I do have several edits on other topics, and if not for this pattern and my disgust with how easy it apparently is to game Wikipedia or buy favorable coverage, I hardly would have touched the page. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
To be direct. Your point's been made. It no longer needs to be there.
No one seems to be hiding any COI at this point. The ease of editing these is inversely proportional to the popularity of the person; the more famous you are, the more difficult it is to game (more people are watching). Whether they made substantive edits or not is irrelevant. Their COI is known and we simply acknowledge it and treat their edits accordingly. That doesn't mean that the edits are automatically wrong. Please read WP:COI. If you want it changed, you need to go there to change it. But you cannot go around badmouthing people on an article talk page: Wikipedia:Civility#Different_places,_different_atmospheres. Their personal talk page is the place to discuss such behavior and the various notice boards. Posting a perpetual warning that certain people have reasons they shouldn't be trusted flies in the face of WP:NPA and the guidance at COI. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

  The Civility Barnstar
For your continued civility and good humor, despite us having different perspectives about RHowarth. I greatly appreciate it. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

AP2 notice.

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI

I'm notifying you of this SPI because you had noted 6Years's DUCK like profile [[1]]. Springee (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

RfD for List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia

Hi, Buffs. I think that you left out the word "not" in your comment to the above-referenced RfD (I listed the reasons why every reasonable assessment is that Palestine is *not* a generally recognized sovereign state.)

Cheeres, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Whoops...fixed. Also, it's "Cheers"... lol Buffs (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Do'h! That's what I get for editing from my iPhone (and without my glasses). : ) AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Tina Keeper

Unfortunately I accidentally hit the enter key in the process of trying to type an edit summary, and if there's a way to go back and alter an edit summary after it's been saved I've never been told how it works. So the only thing I can do is provide an explanation now.

The issue is that the subject herself has a persistent habit, literally throughout the entire past decade, of repeatedly trying to rewrite the article so that it serves purely as an advertorialized résumé about her current work as a film producer, and almost completely blows out any content about her time in politics beyond basic acknowledgement of the fact itself: she deems the electoral results tables "not pertinent", she considers it "not pertinent" for the infobox to list her predecessor and successor as MP for Churchill, she considers it "not pertinent" for the article to actually say anything about her time as an MP, and on and so forth. This is the last version of the article that she tried to impose before I finally indeffed it back in March — as you can see, it's clearly not a properly written encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination, and fails to even demonstrate her notability as a film producer.

But because she's surpassed autoconfirmed status, the autoconfirmed and pending-changes levels of article protection wouldn't stop her at all — and because the first time she tried to do this was in 2010, yet she was still trying to do it as recently as this March, I'm not convinced that she won't try again if she can. So I don't know what other options there are: it can't stay indeffed forever, but she's been too persistent about this for far too long to trust that the problem won't recur; even if she were blocked, she would likely just register a new username so she could keep doing it. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I'm not an admin, so I don't know 100% of the tools or their functionality. However, it seems to me that you can apply ECP again and provide a rationale (it's been done by others. It is my humble opinion that if an individual user is causing problems, we should block that problem user rather than protect. If they are circumventing blocks, then ECP would apply due to persistent disruptive editing. ECP has a VERY specific role in Wikipedia ("The encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). When we start restricting articles editing access, we fall short of that goal. While it's sometimes necessary, a de minimis perspective should apply. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comment at Sir Joseph ANI

I see you've left a comment on my participation at ANI. Please review and consider what I said. I said "nobody's here to ban you". Less tersely, nobody came to that thread, with its abundant evidence and discussion, with the predetermined purpose of banning Sir Joseph. In the course of the discussion, it evidently has become clear to many of us that a ban is the only way to put a stop to his corrosive behavior. Your comment really didn't help advance that discussion at ANI. You can always come to my talk page and disagree or present constructive criticism. Most of the editors who support a ban seem to have long knowledge or experience of Sir Joseph's behavior. In my opinion, after all the warnings and civil disagreements that have been presented to him over the years, and after all the sanctions he's earned, it is not a good bet that he would change his longstanding style of editing WP. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree and I guess that's it. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Good. I suppose I don't know that none of the many participants there came predisposed to banning him, so fair enough as to my words. But by the same token, your "demonstrably false" as to editors' intentions is also unproved, only in your case it's an insinuation of malicious intent. Mine was an assumption of good faith. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I bid you good day/night Buffs (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, Your additions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence seem to have nothing to do with the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case. Zerotalk 23:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000: explanation added in case it wasn't clear. Buffs (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the Finns party over whether or not the party should be listed as “ultranationalist” in the ideology section. I have been asked to invite users to come on and comment on the issue. Please come and join the talk and give your opinions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns_Party#/talk/13 Victor Salvini (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Decline Per my 4th grade soccer coach about a fight at the field next to ours: "not my circus...not my monkeys..." Buffs (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case proposal

Regarding this edit: you should create a subsection under section 4 for your proposals, and put the proposed remedy there. Hope that helps! isaacl (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl:I'm new to this process, so thanks for being gentle. Done! Buffs (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Buffs".