User talk:John Reaves

Sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end and use a section header .
Click here to leave a new message.

• OTRS • commons • irc:JohnReaves •

Recent block of IP:68.234.100.60

You may want to consider talk page revoking of 68.234.100.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which you blocked recently. Looking at the block log, it was done last time, and the IP is blanking block logs from their talk page. Wes Wolf ^Talk 15:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I find it is best to simply ignore blocked users unless they are doing something that violates policy such as personal attacks. -- John Reaves 15:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

216.109.5.2

• 216.109.5.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

When blocking this IP address, did you happen to see the block log? I've found that it's fairly common practice for admins to escalate block durations for long-term IP vandals overtime (schools, shared IPs, etc.). In general, short blocks for these types of IPs don't stop the vandalism for very long and they oftentimes quickly resume vandalizing, so I'm not sure if a short 31 hour block will stop them for long. Thank you. 207.255.138.175 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I considered that. However, the last block was over a year and a half ago and it is summer so the previously used {{schoolblock}} is less likely to apply here. -- John Reaves 20:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked User:Weybridgeguy

Hello. You blocked the user for disruptive editing on Chera dynasty, where they were tag-teaming with an IP that geolocated to the same area (London, UK) and obviously was the same person, and judging by Autoblock #7583765 they tried to pull the same trick again, i.e. edit while logged out, within seconds of getting blocked... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I only see one IP edit, could easily be an accident. -- John Reaves 04:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me, Brianga, DynaGirl, Money money tickle parsnip, George Ho, and Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez handle DonitzLiebt's disruptive edits. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

About your Articles

Hi John How are you? I have been reading your articles I found it very useful and interesting but at the end of that article about waqar zaka is not true at all. He is a celebrity of Pakistan. I personally know him very well. He is always trying to help poor people through charity programs and he also help Syrian people to build there house, schools and hospitals. So please I request you to remove that particular portion of article. I'll be very thankful to you. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb hashmi (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

UTRS reservation

Hi! You placed a reservation on this UTRS case 6 days ago, but you haven't done anything since. If you do not intend to review the case, you should release it so that someone else can review it. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Sorry about that, didn't mean to reserve it. I hardly remember anything about resolving autoblocks. What's the procedure for dealing with autblocks now days? -- John Reaves 16:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you know it's an autoblock and not hard IP block? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't, thanks for the help though. -- John Reaves 16:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man

The Rambling Man ...is continuing the edit war at WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a different content altogether, and Rubin is once again abusing his position as an admin to threaten me. It's a very straightforward discussion, by the way, and something which it seems that regulars at RY are keen to hide, lack of quality. By the way, Rubin, I told you to not ping me, this did, so please, as an admin, learn how to do this properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's on the same subject. He's editing WP:RY in an attempt to make it absurd, possibly so that it could be modified to support his edits to 2017. (This is assuming good faith. He believes the guideline to be absurd, so he wants to make it clear that it is absurd.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Rubin, you're coming close to recall now, so I'd advise you to pack it in. The fact that you allow regular RY editors to modify this "guideline" yet not me is beyond reproach, you're plumbing the depths and if you continue, I'll seek your desysop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, you say I'm trying to make the guidelines "absurd" yet they already are "absurd" but you don't want them to be honestly represented to the community and our readers as "absurd"? I have one word for that, can you guess? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you have misunderstood what seems to ME to be a clear statement. I do not believe the guideline to be absurd. I believe that you believe the guideline to be absurd, so your attempt to make it more absurd is understandable, although a good example of WP:GAME. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong and your abuse of position is ever more evident. I assumed that RY, like most other such projects, would apply quality thresholds, but that isn't true soon I stated it explicitly. You reverted me me more threats yet you happily left a reinstated version from one of the RY regulars. Despicable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin I'm waiting for your consistent approach and your reversion of the re-addition of a quality section at this so-called "guideline" by one of the project regulars, along with appropriate warnings? Of course you treat us all equally, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a proper forum to discuss your edit warring, as this edit closed the edit warring report about 2017. It is not a proper forum to discuss WP:RY in general. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Rollback authority related to erstwhile princely state

I am approaching you inline to the above stated subject. I see that people here with vested interest are promoting falsehood with improper and no citation especially related to erstwhile.princely states of India.

This has occured two days ago. Therefore I would like to request some access to stop vandalism by some editors who became editors for their vested interest snd have no value attach with what they utter.