User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Admin notes

Overview

This page is for the use of admins only, in regards to the Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Other editors can of course watch the page, but to keep the purpose of the page focused, only admins should post here, thanks.

Log of admin actions

Please try to leave a note here of things that you've done, so that other admins on the next "shift" can be aware, thanks.

Placed Category:History of Bratislava on semi-protection for 2 weeks due to edit-warring with anons.

Protected L'udovit Stur due to edit-warring between Tulkolahten and Rembaoud. --El on ka April 18

MarkBA (talk · contribs) and multiple socks blocked for 1 week. Though MarkBA was "retired" as of April 12, he popped up within hours demanding to be unblocked. Yamla and MaxSem declined the unblock almost simultaneously. MarkBA deleted the block/unblock templates a couple times, we put them back, and then Yamla protected the talkpage for 3 days, which will expire evening of 4/23. --El on ka

I agree that if MarkBA resumes his incivility, he should be subject to escalating blocks. I've looked at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA. Since none of his confirmed socks have long contribution histories I assume they are dynamic IPs; i.e. it is not worth giving them long blocks. If any new IPs show up on the articles where MarkBA used to contribute, and they express similar views to his, I'd suggest that semi-protection of those articles should be considered for a month or more. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nmate (talk · contribs) blocked on April 21 for reverting without discussion. He apologized, I lifted the block, then he proceeded to add unsourced information and make uncivil comments. I cautioned him again, then he made an ethnic comment about Dutch editors,[1] so I re-blocked for 1 week. Markussep pointed out that Nmate's comments were part of a pattern.[2] Nmate has protested, saying (I think) that he didn't mean anything by it. Other admins may wish to review. --El on ka 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your renewal of the block. Though nobody will be crushed for life by one of these incivil comments, they suggest that the person making them is not willing to live up to the bargain. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 hours, for continuing to edit war (he even told me in advance that he was going to do it). After I blocked, he requested that his block be modified such that he could edit the experiment page.[3] I pondered his request, since I could have lifted the block with the restriction that he only edit there. However, since I still have concerns about his civility and ability to assume good faith, I declined the request. If another admin would like to grant it, I won't object. --El on ka 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid (talk · contribs) made a controversial edit at Pilisszentkereszt ,[4] without discussing it at talk. It was a one-time edit so I decided to adopt a "wait and see" attitude, but the edit has also been challenged by Squash Racket.[5] Svetovid is on a 30-day "no revert" restriction, so if he makes another undiscussed controversial change, or engages in any non-vandalism revert, I recommend immediate block. --El on ka 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Principality of Nitra article, previously an unsourced piece that was the target of edit wars, has received some nice (and sourced!) expansion lately by Squash Racket. Nice job. :) --El on ka 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that I started a thread on AN about the experiment. Feedback so far has been positive, we appear to have community approval to continue. :) WP:AN#Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. --El on ka 05:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA (talk · contribs) talkpage protection will expire later today, though his block still continues for a few more days. I recommend spot-checking the page, both to remove the protection template when it expires, and also in case Mark wants to talk. I feel sort of like it's "talking through the bars" to an inmate, but perhaps he can be persuaded to be more constructive and collegial in the future. If not, and he resumes incivility, I recommend extending the block. --El on ka 11:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For those who are coming up to speed on the dispute, I recommend reading the Hedvig Malina article, as it seems to be at the center of much of the recent conflict, both on-wiki and off-wiki. Many of the disputed articles, appear to be related to the Malina controversy. --El on ka 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours, for violating his "no revert" restriction, and further, calling it "obvious vandalism" in the edit summary, when it seemed to be a good faith change.[6] Since his last block was for 48 hours, I probably could have gone with 72 hours or 1 week, but I opted for a shorter block, hoping that this time he actually gets the message. If not, and he continues, I recommend a hefty block, or possibly putting him on a "no article editing" restriction, and limit him to talkpages for a month. --El on ka 11:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Borsoka (talk · contribs) has been added to Digwuren editing restrictions. He also appears to have been using one or more anons. I have encouraged Svetovid to file an SSP report. I'd also appreciate another view on Borsoka's edits to Principality of Nitra and Pribina, specifically where he's been removing sources.[7] This anon may also be him.[8] I reverted the anon for blanking, but in terms of Borsoka's edit, on the one hand, I don't know for myself whether or not those are valid sources. On the other, he doesn't seem to be giving compelling reasons for why the sources should be removed. Some of the other editors involved, who disagree with his actions, are under revert restrictions so can't revert him themselves. I could revert, but want to be cautious about embedding myself too deeply into the content dispute. What do other admins think? --El on ka 08:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that Borsoka's removal of two sources as references for Principality of Nitra ought to be reverted, since there is no claim that they are bad sources. For example, Kirschbaum's History of Slovakia ranks well in Google Scholar, and the author is a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada so he presumably has some respectability. The whole article on Principality of Nitra probably needs more meticulous reference to what the sources say, since that period of history seems to involve a lot of conjecture. Some direct quotes from the language used by the sources probably needs to be included in the reference list. This obviously will take some patient work. Borsoka's question as to whether that principality even existed needs more specific data. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. :) I went ahead and restored the sources, and added a note at Talk:Pribina. --El on ka 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

195.168.243.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) blocked for 24 hours, for making uncivil and ethnic-based attacks at Talk:Principality of Nitra. It seems to be someone who has some knowledge of history, but the anonymous coward attacks are not helpful to the environment. I've blocked for 24 hours, and if the account resumes with incivility when it returns, I recommend an indefinite block. --El on ka 01:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
195.168.243.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) blocked for 1 week, for coming off the block and going right back to incivility and ethnic attacks.[9] It's unfortunate, because whoever it is behind the account, does have some knowledge of history, and could probably be a valuable editor if they could keep their temper under control. Then again, since it's an anon, an indefinite block might be more appropriate at this point. Anyone else have an opinion? --El on ka 15:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a two-month block of the IP might be appropriate. (IPs shouldn't be blocked indef anyway). Your strategy is to keep the discussion civil at all costs, and hope that the improved climate of the Talk page will lead to more positive feelings. Ideally there will be a substantive talk-page dialog that will eventually dig up usable information. Nobody at ANI said you were wrong to try that, so you might as well continue with that plan. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid (talk · contribs) blocked for one week, for violating his "no revert" restriction at Petrzalka.[10] This was a dispute about whether or not to include alternate names in the lead. Multiple discussions have taken place about this, and the clear consensus was to include the names, and I made a formal declaration about it on the talkpage.[11] But Svetovid still reverted, and said the consensus "has no binding power."[12] I really hate having to block him, because he does a lot of other good work, but the edit warring has to stop. In previous blocks, he never indicated that he would abide by restrictions, he just waited for the block to expire. So this time, I've offered to reduce the block, if he is willing to give his word that he will abide by restrictions. If he does so, any other admin is welcome to lift the block. --El on ka 12:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
195.98.12.89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) blocked for 1 week, for continuing with incivility and attacks after being warned. From the communication style, I am guessing that this is MarkBA again. --El on ka 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Svetovid (talk · contribs), fresh off his last 1 week block, was back to reverting again. I blocked his account access for 2 weeks this time, and made the same offer that I did last time, which is that if he's willing to give his word to abide by restrictions, the block may be lifted early. --El on ka 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The Autobahn (talk · contribs) is probably a secondary account of User:MarkBA, based on his interest in naming disputes,[13] and the most recent message on his talkpage.[14] Since I'm not 100% certain, and since the account has made several constructive edits, I have informed him that he is on editing restrictions, and with one more controversial edit, he is risking a block.[15] However, if anyone else feels that the MarkBA connection is obvious, we could probably block the account right now, since it is being used to get around MarkBA's current 3-month block. Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even if this isn't MarkBA, this is someone familiar with Wikipedia and the naming dispute. Unless there's more concrete evidence that this is Mark avoiding his block, I think your final warning should do just fine -- clearly, its not okay to create a second account on Wikipedia to continue this dispute. Shell ^babelfish 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka's response to The Autobahn seems fine to me. His edits so far are discouraging, but there is some hope. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Thanks. I am engaged in discussion at Autobahn's talkpage, and he is either genuinely confused by the situation, or he is MarkBA and "playing dumb". If anyone else would like to chime in, please feel free. --El on ka 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point here: User:CoolKoon has been blocked for 6 months at the Slovak Wikipedia.[16] He has since followed the blocking administrator, User:AtonX here to EN, and is leaving messages on AtonX's talkpage,[17] which AtonX claims are personal attacks (but I can't read them). See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:AtonX versus User:CoolKoon. My inclination, since AtonX is an admin on another 'pedia (sk:User:AtonX), is to just issue a courtesy block, even though I cannot verify for myself that the comment was an attack. Anyone else have an opinion? And if we do block, how long should we block for? The same six months? Or a lesser amount? I've also started a thread on this here.[18] --El on ka 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of the warring parties seem to be participating at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:AtonX versus User:CoolKoon. If any voluntary agreement is reached there, I believe it should allow the present thread to be closed. Theoretically we could take an interest in evidence from another Wiki, but we'd have to understand it first. The mere fact of a block might not be enough. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Autobahn (talk · contribs) was confirmed by CheckUser as a sockpuppet of User:MarkBA.[19] I have indef blocked the account. --El on ka 08:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nmate (talk · contribs) blocked again, for two weeks this time, for making edits in violation of naming conventions, and increasingly uncivil behavior, such as referring to Svetovid's edits as "vandalism". --El on ka 04:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Svetovid (talk · contribs) was escalating his behavior again, making a sweep through multiple articles and deleting Hungarian names, and then edit-warring about it. I advised him repeatedly that a better way to handle things would be to tag such names as needing sources, and then if no sources were provided, he could delete the names. But he just kept on with the edit-warring, including repeated reverts on articles without any discussion at talk. I am also cautioning some of the other editors involved; however, Svetovid's last block was for two weeks, and he is continuing to be combative and refusing to moderate his behavior. So it's a one month block this time, and I have told him that unless he agrees to change his ways, the next block will be indefinite. --El on ka 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)