User talk:Stwalkerster/Archive February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 28 February 2021

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

  Arbitration

  • The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 20

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 20

17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected Nathan Rich

Hi, I noticed you protected Nathan Rich which is good and well, but it's preserved the latest edit by the anonymous user which is clearly vandalism. Would you mind reverting it to a clean version? The clean version [14] has references, while the vandalized version [15] has no references -- even more important since this is BLP. DrIdiot (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. You not blocking the IP is bizarre. pandakekok9 (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@DrIdiot and Pandakekok9: apologies, my intention was to firstly stop the edit warring, and then sort everything out later. The edits being made were not what I would classify as obvious vandalism, so in my opinion reliance on the exemptions to WP:3RR here is somewhat tenuous, and I feel that it's definitely in the 3RR grey area. The fastest way to solve rapid-fire edit warring like that is either to block the participants or to protect the page - I chose the latter.
As I said, my intention was to first stop the warring, and then sort things out later, but real life appears to have got the better of me this time, as I was called away urgently in the middle of trying to sort it out and I've only just managed to get back online. I see things appear to have been mostly sorted out in my absence. stwalkerster (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks -- no harm done. But I have to disagree that it was any kind of toss-up content dispute. The now banned user replaced a well-sourced paragraph with his own personal opinion, totally unsourced -- the fact that it was unsourced alone means it's justified to remove without discussion per WP:BLP. DrIdiot (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree with that for the first or maybe even second revert, but I wouldn't rely on that as a bullet-proof exemption from 3RR, and the edit warring policy even states What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. In this case, I don't feel any harm would have been done to just wait for a ANEW/AIV/BLPN report to be actioned. stwalkerster (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

17:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


00:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021