NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 10:34am:
IP addresses beginning 81.129.0.0 to 81.129.255.255 is for public use therefore it's not someone from BT using BT's company internet access leaving BT ISP customers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 27^th, 2007 at 5:46pm:
Wouldn't that be referring to this site specifically meaning wikipedia 0870/0845 pages linking to this site rather than the ads on this site.

I say this because surely other wikipedia pages link to sites which carry ads on.  It's very difficult these days to find useful sites without ads

Right, well an admin has fully protected the 0845 and 0870 pages until the content dispute has been resolved. Unfortunately, the user(s) have now moved to remove the discussion from the talk pages!!

a very nice man wrote on Sep 28^th, 2007 at 1:23am:


Perhaps its an inside job.

Right, let me explain what is going on before people go off on a completely wrong tangent. I was trying to get the page semi protected last night. An admin told me it couldn't be semi protected because it was a content dispute - it had to be fully protected or not protected at all. Unfortunately, the anonymous user was reverting my edits straight away so I couldn't keep the sayno stuff on long enough for an admin to protect it with it on. Therefore, I managed to get the admin to protect it with the content dispute notice, directing people to the talk page.

As a result, the anonymous user moved to the talk page to blank out the content about the sayno discussion there instead. They were warned twice about it (despite ignoring them and reverting the pages) and were blocked by the admin for 24 hours. Hopefully this will get them into the discussion (I doubt it, but worth a try).

There are ways of requesting content to be put into a fully protected article, but if you want the sayno stuff placed in it, it must have been seen to have reached a consensus - they will not edit it if there are still disputes over the content. The only other thing that can be done is a request for the page to be unprotected, but then we are back to the same scenario as before.

jgxenite,

My comments were no refelction on yourself. Infact the complete opposite - you are doing a fantastic job - well done.

However there is something wrong here if a single anonymous poster (with quite a chip on their shoulder by the sounds of it) can cause this much damage. Surely the admin of the site should take the view that the original post should stay unless the anonymous poster can justify why it shouldn't. Being anonymous doesn't help their cause, particularly as they may have an undeclared vested interest. If they are upfront they maybe able to justify theire change, but if not it should revert to the original.

After all what is to stop me doing this to any other perfectly factual reference on the site?

You say that the saynoto0870 can not stay unless it has reached consensus. Surely the reverse is also true and that the saynoto0870 shouldn't be removed unless it has reached consensus. Who is to say which article is the base point?

Keith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2007 at 8:55am:


When providing full protection, the admin will protect the page as they find it. They do not take requests as to which version to protect. I asked the admin to protect it with the version as it is.


Keith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2007 at 8:55am:


Nothing except for peer review I guess.

Keith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2007 at 8:55am:


That is a particularly hard question to answer. Yes, it appears there is one user with a very large chip on their shoulder who wants this site kept as far away from that article as possible. I suspect that if the page had been protected with the information with it on, we might have been able to get a debate going. As the page is protected without the information, I suspect the debate will end there. If there is no feedback from the anonymous user within the next few days, I'll request that the information about sayno is added to the page. Then we'll see if we get a reply.

Good luck jgxenite. It needs to come back. It then needs to be frozen with it on and then we can see a debate with anonymous.

I wonder what other site he/she vandalises? The logic applied seems to mean that we can change the capital of France to London on the appropriate page and keep changing it after it is corrected and there is a 50% chance that when it is protected it will be protected in the incorrect state even though that is patently stupid!

Where there is a dispute it should revert to the original for discussion not some random point with a note stating there is a dispute.

I appreciate this is out of your hands, but I needed the rant!

Again good luck. If someone is unwilling to argue why something should be changed, it shouldn't be changed. That is just vandalism.