Talk:Bank of Hawaii

Cleanup
The History section was in list format. It's now prose (sort of) but it needs copyediting so it reads cleanly. RJFJR (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Added headings and subheadings so it can be read more easily. I'm not sure why the entry is in there on the Bank of Maui - it appears to have no relationship to the rest of the text. I'm assuming it was acquired at some point by BoH, but there is no statement to that effect. Marikafragen (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandal(s)?
Two recent instances of likely vandalism on this article are noted here User talk:Acad Ronin.

Now there's been a third round of likely vandalism -- similar or same content -- from a new or restyled editor, and reversion, here.

The third edit was executed by a named, rather than the IP-only, editor. The three reversions were executed by three different editors. Full history available here. So far noone has proposed/executed a systemic response to block further recurrences, but the field is open. Help welcome.

Perchance the "vandal(s)" care(s) to respond here. I think we'd all love to hear more about the content you, singly or collectively, are trying to add to the article. Who knows? You may be on to something, but your form of contribution is lacking so far.

Thanks all. Swliv (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly the issues are that the editor(s) is adding controversial content without proper citations, adding their own commentary, the tone is wrong for an encyclopedia (e.g., "Its my understanding", "FROM TWITER: BANKRUPTCY LOOOMS FOR BANK OF HAWAII?", "You can see the public filing"), and it's all poorly written. These edits are not occurring with great frequency (one a day and it's now been several days since the last edit) so it doesn't really look like that much of a problem.  Given that there is, apparently, IP jumping going on it will be difficult to block the correct editor.  The solution, if the editing begins to happen with a lot more frequency, is to get the page semi-protected by an admin.  But like I said, it's too early to pursue that route. SQGibbon (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fine.
 * I'll note that the most recent, named editor BananaObama ("third edit," above) has been blocked indefinitely by yet another editor(-administrator) who has not previously been involved in this particular issue, as far as I've seen. Swliv (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, rewards of perseverance: Here's that editor-block, which led me to learn about trolling, with a fun illustration of the fight against such; here's the actual violation. ... Haven't even checked the main article to see if we've been vandal-free. Well, on we go. Swliv (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like 65.113.116.178 is back. I've rolled back the change, but this is the third time they've done it.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, my count is five separate edits by 65.113.116.178 have been rolled back by various editors in recent days/weeks. I'm going to alert the editor-blocker ref'd above, if that's a term. Thanks for keeping on this. Swliv (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The last incident happened about three days ago, but if it happens again, I will protect the page. Is that okay with everyone? Acalamari 19:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me.Acad Ronin (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake in my initiative tonight so I'm a little shaken; and out of steam; and inclined to let the article go unprotected for a little longer if that's not just more trouble for everyone else.
 * Rather than five by 65.113.116.178, I now see six reversions, I think, by four different IP #s 65.113.118.2, 65.113.119.85, 199.117.151.216 and 65.113.116.178. The last # 65.113.116.178 accounted for the three most recent reverted edits but my mistake was to lump them together with the earlier "65" #s. SQGibbon's reference above to "IP jumping" is more relevant than ever. So, having stirred the pot, here, I'm actually now feeling like letting the soup, to maintain the metaphor, simmer for a bit longer before protecting the (relatively dormant, otherwise) page. We have Clue Bot NG as well as several editors who have watched the page well.
 * My nervousness now is that I haven't confirmed that all six, or however many, are substantively the same; and I'm not ready right now to take on that project.
 * But if protection were to go ahead, I'd be fine with that too.
 * For now, from me, sorry for the misguided alarum, and thanks all. Swliv (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No harm no foul. Acalmari was suggesting we wait to see what happens and that's fine.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)