→Oversight needed at Lolicon?: don't post oversight requests on the site, WP:OVERSIGHT is that way <---- |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | |||
<noinclude> |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 400K |
|||
⚫ | |||
|counter = 182 |
|||
|format=%%i |
|||
|algo = old(48h) |
|||
|age=48 |
|||
⚫ | |||
|index=no |
|||
⚫ | |||
|maxarchsize=409600 |
|||
|numberstart=180 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
Revision as of 04:24, 29 January 2009
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Bots and Archives
Did anyone else notice that the archives template in the upper right no longer points to the right place, apparently archive 181 was done by a different bot? Whats going on here exactly? Apologies if I missed an already posted query.--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can't confirm the issue. /Archive181 doesn't exist and is redlinked in the template for me. Additionally, /Archive180 is no where near full enough to make a new archive necessary yet. Some of Archive180 appears to have been manually archived, but other than that I don't understand what's wrong here. lifebaka++ 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 181, which is different than Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181. Suggest tweaking the archive setting and doing some manual cut/pastes. MBisanz talk 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right, forgot to check this page's history. Tweaked setting, did a history merge, and a page move. Turns out there's also /Archive 180, so I merged it with /Archive180 and moved /Archive 181 to /Archive181. It should be taken care of now, although Archive180 is larger than before. The bot settings should make it archive without the space now, but watch in case Archive 180 turns to a blue link again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the simple fix worked. There are a few pages that link to Archive 180 and Archive 181, so the redirects might be useful to restore. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- In stead, I have updated the links to these archive pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the simple fix worked. There are a few pages that link to Archive 180 and Archive 181, so the redirects might be useful to restore. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right, forgot to check this page's history. Tweaked setting, did a history merge, and a page move. Turns out there's also /Archive 180, so I merged it with /Archive180 and moved /Archive 181 to /Archive181. It should be taken care of now, although Archive180 is larger than before. The bot settings should make it archive without the space now, but watch in case Archive 180 turns to a blue link again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 181, which is different than Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181. Suggest tweaking the archive setting and doing some manual cut/pastes. MBisanz talk 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
IANAA, but IIRC, I've seen ClueBot (I believe) doing the archiving for the AN/ANI pages the last week or two (or more?) on my watchlist, instead of MiszaBot. Dunno why, but that may be the cause for the trouble. umrguy42 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- User:Canis Lupus changed the archive bot from MiszaBot II to ClueBot III. Since it seems to be working now, I don't know if there's a good reason to change the bot back. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- User:Canis Lupus has been indef blocked as a sock of Betacommand, so he can't be invited to comment here. Per the discussion at WT:AN#Archiving I suggest that we undo Canis Lupus's change and let MiszaBot resume archiving. (The switch to ClueBot may have been a misunderstanding due to the end-of-December outage that affected all the toolserver bots). EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems like the archiving stopped again. The last archive run I see was 25 January. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Latin Europe
Hi! There is somebody who edits from different ip-adresses and permanently disrupts the article Latin Europe. I also tried to talk to him, but it was useless. I suppose it is the user Yorkshirian because the location seems to match with him. The article Latin Europe should be at least semi-protected. --Olahus (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs). You might want to ask a check user to look for any socks since he is back (or more likely never really left). The IP and topic area is a clear match. Now excuse me while I return to my post-Wikipedia life. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting postulations. Well for starters, several socks of both Yorkshirian and Iamandrewrice appear to be linked, making it probable they're one person anyway - so there's no need for me to deal with each accusation separately (especially for as far as I can see, the Yorky account never touched this article).
- But more to the point, User:Iamandrewrice appears to have spent hours upon hours constructing a massive table in the article, and arguing avidly against its deletion on the talk page - yet I deleted it - would I really do that if I was truly the same user? 78.147.130.29 (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note, the edit warring has stopped on the page, and appearingly-constructive discussions are now running. 78.147.130.29 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't prove anything. What proves this is the fact that you are disrupting the same article from the same IP range as Iamandrewrice. You have a history of trying to fool people, engaging in long debates against established consensus and common sense and claim that unrelated users are your socks. If it quacks... EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- And now we have Eukariota (talk · contribs). It begins again... EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- So according to you, I'm trying to fool you by deleting work that "I" spent hours creating and fighting for? Of course that is entirely logical. *Rolls eyes*.
- And the Eukariota account - this was made in order to edit commons (as this is not possible by IP) - no attempt was made to distinguish myself from the IPs.
- I'm not entirely sure of your history with the user, but perhaps you'd find it more helpful if you took it to someone who looks to have had extensive experience with them. Eukariota (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You sure know a lot about Iamandrewrice for someone who has nothing to do with him. You know that Alison was the CU who did most of the work identifying the socks despite the request not being linked to anywhere on Iamandrewrice's user page. You also claim to be able to tell that Iamandrewrice and Yorkshirian may be sharing socks yet you know nothing about Iamandrewrice and simply "accidently" walked straight into the same article from the same IP range. Your sole defense rests on you deleting something that anyone could delete. It proves nothing. What proves this is the striking simularity in IP range, choice of article and disruptive editing style on the exact same pet articles. You fooled me once, you're not fooling me again. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you heard of something called a google search? Ok, let's have a look at the article after Iamandrewrice's last proven sock wielded his antics there: [1], and the article before he touched it: [2]. Then look at what I turned the article into. I really don't see what editing similarities you could claim between us. I basically undid everything he added. Your "evidence" for us being the same person is that we are editing the same article from similar IP ranges. I hope you realise millions of people across the British Isles share the range? As before, please question Alison if you still hold doubts - what is talking about it here going to do? Eukariota (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you keep logging in and out? If you really are a good faith user you should stick to using your account rather than switch between the account and new IPs. As for contacting Alison I don't need to - your IPs were disclosed in the checkuser request due to the severity of the disruption. You fooled me, you fooled Jeff for even longer and you aren't getting away with it again. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't keep logging in and out. I was on my IP, and then when I wanted to respond to you, I logged back in so you'd be able to identify me. Like I said, the IP range is completely insignificant, as literally millions of people will be covered by it. I also would like to remind you of WP:NPA. I notice you seem to completely ignore my points - sorry but I'm done with this conversation now. You have what? - five edits to your name, all of them here. WP:SPA much. Eukariota (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't keep logging in and out. I was on my IP, and then when I wanted to respond to you, I logged back in Right... that made sense. Totally. If you Googled the checkuser request you already know who I am... my name appears several times on the request. Coincidences don't happen. You didn't accidently start editing the same article as Iamandrewrice from the same IP range, you are Iamandrewrice. Banned means banned, not sneak back in when you think no one is watching. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't keep logging in and out. I was on my IP, and then when I wanted to respond to you, I logged back in so you'd be able to identify me. Like I said, the IP range is completely insignificant, as literally millions of people will be covered by it. I also would like to remind you of WP:NPA. I notice you seem to completely ignore my points - sorry but I'm done with this conversation now. You have what? - five edits to your name, all of them here. WP:SPA much. Eukariota (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you keep logging in and out? If you really are a good faith user you should stick to using your account rather than switch between the account and new IPs. As for contacting Alison I don't need to - your IPs were disclosed in the checkuser request due to the severity of the disruption. You fooled me, you fooled Jeff for even longer and you aren't getting away with it again. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you heard of something called a google search? Ok, let's have a look at the article after Iamandrewrice's last proven sock wielded his antics there: [1], and the article before he touched it: [2]. Then look at what I turned the article into. I really don't see what editing similarities you could claim between us. I basically undid everything he added. Your "evidence" for us being the same person is that we are editing the same article from similar IP ranges. I hope you realise millions of people across the British Isles share the range? As before, please question Alison if you still hold doubts - what is talking about it here going to do? Eukariota (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You sure know a lot about Iamandrewrice for someone who has nothing to do with him. You know that Alison was the CU who did most of the work identifying the socks despite the request not being linked to anywhere on Iamandrewrice's user page. You also claim to be able to tell that Iamandrewrice and Yorkshirian may be sharing socks yet you know nothing about Iamandrewrice and simply "accidently" walked straight into the same article from the same IP range. Your sole defense rests on you deleting something that anyone could delete. It proves nothing. What proves this is the striking simularity in IP range, choice of article and disruptive editing style on the exact same pet articles. You fooled me once, you're not fooling me again. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- And now we have Eukariota (talk · contribs). It begins again... EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't prove anything. What proves this is the fact that you are disrupting the same article from the same IP range as Iamandrewrice. You have a history of trying to fool people, engaging in long debates against established consensus and common sense and claim that unrelated users are your socks. If it quacks... EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Possible Gwp socks
Two socks from this user creation range have gone on the "rampage" as such today, with page move vandalism, i.e. Roo's Tubes (talk · contribs) and Yigger (talk · contribs). I see several accounts (as of yet have not gone on the rampage) with six or seven edits in quick succession and nothing else - for instance Smokemirror86 (talk · contribs) and The Flea from Mucha Lucha (talk · contribs). I'm not an admin (so therefore can't block), but I'm certain that if an admin skins through the account contributions listed in that UC range, they will see some *possible* sleepers. Also there appears to be several in the load, approx. 06:33/34/35. D.M.N. (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- No obvious sleepers left, given the two accounts you mentioned. Do feel free to report any more if/when they turn up, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've blocked the latter two accounts; the contribution histories look like an endrun around the autoconfirmation limit and in and of themselves should have set off alarm bells. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Looks fine to me. Very minor edits (changing capitalization, piping links, adding or removing a space) with a new account to get the account autoconfirmed looks like classic Gwp behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am a little concerned that this is not an appropriate block reason, especially for an account that has not made any unconstructive edits. Would you care to explain this? -- Gurch (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll say it again: the account was making minor or insubstantial edits to bypass the autoconfirmed barrier, which in and of itself is a red flag it's a Jarl sock. Whether they're constructive or not is more often than not immaterial. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- And that makes it alright to stoop to their level? -- Gurch (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- They lost any chance for civility from me the day after 4chan got FP'd. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then you should recuse from blocking them. Admin logs should always be perfectly civil and informative. The possibility of a false positive, especially when it's not the most typical Gwp-sock editing style, and the fact they haven't reached the 10 edits threshold, shouldn't be discarded. New users often begins with very minor edits, look at the new users' log. Cenarium (Talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- New users make minor edits to the same article exclusively within a few minutes of each edit? -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hooooly crap. You left a block message of "Go circlejerk with your wethers, Jarl" on someone whose only edits were adding "Escape from Alcatraz" to List of films based on actual events and then editing their entry six times? You're going to have to explain what this "behavior" problem is, and even so the block message wouldn't be justified. rspεεr (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The "behavior" problem is the large amount of edits in a relatively short time, usually to the same article or section of an article, intended to bypass the autoconfirmation wall. And as for the edit summaries, it would help if someone had the testicles to tell the Foundation to file an abuse report to his ISP, since they don't listen to volunteers. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 01:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, please forgive my ignorance here, but just out of curiosity, what does "FP'd" mean? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then you should recuse from blocking them. Admin logs should always be perfectly civil and informative. The possibility of a false positive, especially when it's not the most typical Gwp-sock editing style, and the fact they haven't reached the 10 edits threshold, shouldn't be discarded. New users often begins with very minor edits, look at the new users' log. Cenarium (Talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- They lost any chance for civility from me the day after 4chan got FP'd. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- And that makes it alright to stoop to their level? -- Gurch (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Jeske, though the underlying problem is very serious, and preemptory action justified, that deletion rationale you left is absolutely unsuitable under any circumstances. I understand impatience, but this is far beyond what any admin should ever say on-wiki. DGG (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- So is crap that is essentially outing editors, but I notice there are no rangeblocks. Ask Alison and you'll understand a bit better why I've been berserk as of late. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 01:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I can understand that. While I think your edit summary was uncalled-for, I can sure understand your frustration. I've made a similar block summary myself before, and that was wrong, too. Jéské and NawlinWiki are two of the admins at the forefront of protecting the wiki against JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp/You-know-who and at times, things can get just too much. JA has a habit of making as strong and as indelible a BLP violation as he possibly can (against people like Daniel Brandt, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and Giovanni di Stefano for example). He also enjoys publishing personal info on people, including Jéské amongst others. Saying Jéské is 'impatient' is putting it somewhat mildly; he's absolutely frustrated and annoyed by this timewasting nuisance. The irony is that JA/Grawp's real-life identity has also been floating around yet he continues unabated - Alison ❤ 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- So is crap that is essentially outing editors, but I notice there are no rangeblocks. Ask Alison and you'll understand a bit better why I've been berserk as of late. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 01:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll say it again: the account was making minor or insubstantial edits to bypass the autoconfirmed barrier, which in and of itself is a red flag it's a Jarl sock. Whether they're constructive or not is more often than not immaterial. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. Two different issues here. The block: fine. Seems reasonable, preventative and easily reversible. The block log entry....much less so. I can see the frustration that drives Jeske to do this, so I don't think we gain anything from raking him over the coals. My advice is to just compose a pre-written block log and template message for "possible" grawp socks. something neutral and clear explaining why the account was blocked preemptively and what the user should do if there is an error. Then it is just Ctrl/Cmd+V. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give him that recognition of "having his/her own template"; make it as neutral and generic as possible. Tan | 39 16:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- No need for a WP space template. Just something scratched up in notepad. The template isn't for "him" per se. It is for the 1-10% of false positives made in preemtively blocking. Just in case the human behind the account isn't related to grawp then you have a short message saying that the account has been blocked for reason XYZ and unblock requests can be made by emailing OTRS (because the blocks disable talk page editing and email). Protonk (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give him that recognition of "having his/her own template"; make it as neutral and generic as possible. Tan | 39 16:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we should just warn all new users not to make minor edits because if they do they will be blocked, abused, and prevented from making unblock requests? DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- No doubt. Those two accounts fall quite short of the duck test. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- How about this one? Quacks like an elephant. [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't come close to this one (the "alternative account" in question was, er, mine, as I created this one per email request). – iridescent 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I might not have made myself clear; I don't think these two accounts should've been blocked based on those contribs. –xeno (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've just taken a look at my earliest logged-in contributions, and by the standards of some I should have been indef-blocked, sworn at, and my talk page protected. DuncanHill (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I might not have made myself clear; I don't think these two accounts should've been blocked based on those contribs. –xeno (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't come close to this one (the "alternative account" in question was, er, mine, as I created this one per email request). – iridescent 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- How about this one? Quacks like an elephant. [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- No doubt. Those two accounts fall quite short of the duck test. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's an obvious one: Jagger fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz11 20:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Jeske, the trouble with being so candid about one's disgust is that trolls find that interesting. They wonder what else gets under your skin and start poking. It is much better to keep cool and have a chuckle at their expense.[4] Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The difference between myself and you, Durova, is that I am much easier to get angry. Once I'm angry, I lash out, often violently. The only thing preventing me from going down and personally bashing that worthless little internet-toughguy twit's head into his monitor is the fact that I'd sooner not have an assault charge on my head. I'm not the most pacifistic guy on Wikipedia by *any* stretch of the imagination, and even I know when I have to ask friends to proxy as my eyes on /b/ and ED so I can make fun of all the crap Jarl throws at me that's flatly incorrect. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you can't remain impartial you should recuse, as suggested above... –xeno (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I take *EVERY* form of vandalism as a slight, Xeno. Are you suggesting I give up the tools? -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you shouldn't, Jéské. It's the surest way to get burned out and disillusioned. We are, after all, just janitors here, cleaning up the perennial mess of others. RBI just tells us to get the mop out, do the dirty work and move on. Taking things personally shows that vandalism gets to you and you'll end up being milked as a source of lulz (and attention - something Grawp lives for). Don't give them the pleasure - Alison ❤ 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all, I just think you should try and be mindful of what you're committing to the log. –xeno (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I take *EVERY* form of vandalism as a slight, Xeno. Are you suggesting I give up the tools? -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you can't remain impartial you should recuse, as suggested above... –xeno (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The difference between myself and you, Durova, is that I am much easier to get angry. Once I'm angry, I lash out, often violently. The only thing preventing me from going down and personally bashing that worthless little internet-toughguy twit's head into his monitor is the fact that I'd sooner not have an assault charge on my head. I'm not the most pacifistic guy on Wikipedia by *any* stretch of the imagination, and even I know when I have to ask friends to proxy as my eyes on /b/ and ED so I can make fun of all the crap Jarl throws at me that's flatly incorrect. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- See, there's one that passes the duck test! blocked. –xeno (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So as if to endorse the point, Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis/JDH got his "personal army" to vandalize Jéské's talk page dozens of times tonight - as he does - with Jéské's alleged real name and a taunting message. I just oversighted the lot of them (so tough, Grawp). But this is what Jéské puts up with on a daily basis, and he is told to keep his cool when Grawp can do what he damn well pleases. Jéské know's Grawp's RL name, address, etc - who doesn't at this stage - but he's forbidden from mentioning them here. So on it goes ... - Alison ❤ 08:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I still haven't seen any evidence that Smokemirror86 was anything other than a legitimate new user. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, do socks usually enter an email address? I've unblocked - let's not bounce legitimate newbies off the wiki just because they make a few minor edits in succession. The first edit added a line to a list with an edit summary, the next couple fixed that same edit which they botched. Harmless. That's how newbies learn. –xeno (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- As regards Jarl, it should be noted I (and others) have been e-mail bombed by his socks before. Assuming a sock of Jarl won't enter an email address is wishful thinking. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quite. I invite anyone to take a look at my earliest contributions [5]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, do socks usually enter an email address? I've unblocked - let's not bounce legitimate newbies off the wiki just because they make a few minor edits in succession. The first edit added a line to a list with an edit summary, the next couple fixed that same edit which they botched. Harmless. That's how newbies learn. –xeno (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Requesting an impartial look at User talk:YellowMonkey#"Soapboxing account"
I found this indefinite block and several others to be out of line, since the users in question had only ever edited talk pages and seem merely to express opinions on the article rather than editing it. Not only is this not disruptive, but it seems not to be a valid blocking reason, and certainly an indefinite, warningless block of a new user strikes me as an abuse of admin powers and a degree of jadedness about the proper channels. I would appreciate any input. Andre (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was involved in the discussion with Spinnaker gybe (talk · contribs) at Talk:World War I which was the editor's only contributions and led to them being blocked (I'm also an admin). I agree completely with YellowMonkey's actions as this editor was nothing but a troll and appeared to also be a sock puppet (note this edit where this brand new user with no edit history started referencing guidelines and policies and, most damningly, referred to User:Oberiko's troubles at the World War II article which took place in June and July last year and led to User:Oberiko withdrawing from Wikipedia in July - only an established editor would be aware of this). The editor was directed to appropriate avenues to advance their complaints at Talk:World War I but failed to take any of them up. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not an admin, but agree entirely with the block. Account seemed to e nothing but a troll - endlessly complaining, citing reams of guidelines (suspicious for a supposed newbie) but doing absolutely nothing to actually fix the alleged biases they believed were in the article. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wasn't involved with the situation, but it looks like User:Spinnaker gybe was spinning circles on the talk page and arguing for the sake of arguing (in the vein of: these are the Wikipedia policies that this article breaks, repeated ad nauseum without without editing the article, or in some cases even clarifying to what he was referring). I disagree with the description of his behaviour as merely expressing opinions on a article talk page. -- Samir 08:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not an admin, but agree entirely with the block. Account seemed to e nothing but a troll - endlessly complaining, citing reams of guidelines (suspicious for a supposed newbie) but doing absolutely nothing to actually fix the alleged biases they believed were in the article. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
"Soapboxing account"
- From talk page of YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering what you meant by this in your block of User:Spinnaker gybe. I am not familiar with that as a valid blocking reason and I am unclear as to how this user was being disruptive. I am not going to unblock without consulting with you, but my current feeling is that this user should be unblocked. Please let me know. Andre (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed a few other examples of this block reason in your recent contribution history. It seems that in several instances you have blocked users who have only ever edited talk pages. How this is disruptive I fail to understand, and certainly an indefinite block with no warnings is a gross abuse of admin powers and an example of newbie biting. Andre (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cross posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Andre (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can see the comments right above on this page and also my posts to Nick-D (talk · contribs) Skinny87 (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) and WT:MHCOORD following a request for people to look at the WWI article. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cross posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Andre (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you don't edit articles doesn't mean you can't be disruptive; I believe YellowMonkey was acting in line. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- The account was doing nothing but trolling, making a huge fuss about the article and claiming it had biases, demanding polls and citing reams of guidelines, yet doing nothing to actually change the article despite numerous editors asking it to - minutes before it was blocked, I even told it to essentially 'put up or shut up' by creating its own sandbox version of the article. I very much doubt anything would have happened had the account remained unblocked. Skinny87 (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Slowpaced edit warring
On the John Keats, Leigh Hunt, Percy Bysshe Shelley, etc articles, there is a slow paced edit warring going on by User:Dovereg. A user wishes to add his own personal website. There are two links being added: www.johnkeats.org and http://www.freewebs.com/dovereg.
Why am I bringing it up here? Well, it could go to 3RR, because of multiple readding across many pages. However, there is also an IP that is probably the user's or related to the user's (24.128.30.124) that keeps adding in the same item. So, this could go under a Check User request. The pages could also be protected, but it seems like it is a stable IP. The user name (Dovereg) is also listed on the second website that he is listing, which makes it seem like it is a CoI name. It promotes the user's own poetry, POV, and has little of critical quality. So, it seems like this could be taken to half a dozen places to be honest. This is nothing critical right now (as it is extremely slow paced), but I think administrators should know about this. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the other party to the edit war. I'm not sure a checkuser is really called for. It doesn't seem as if there is any pretense that the Dovereg isn't the same user editing under the IP. I don't think the user knows about 3RR. I, on the other hand, do. Though I stand by my assessment of the site, I probably could've handled the situation better. Proceed as you feel is necessary, but I'm not sure I want to involve myself further. It's become too much of a distraction. Dancter (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you have done anything wrong, to be honest. The site from a cursory glance seems to be a personal website and the soap potential is rather blatant. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Though the slow pace rules out a conventional 3RR complaint, spamming is blockable in its own right. I have left final warnings for both Dovereg and the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you have done anything wrong, to be honest. The site from a cursory glance seems to be a personal website and the soap potential is rather blatant. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is Dovereg the supposed 'offender',and firstly I will say that I will not attempt to add the links mentioned above any more. But I want to voice my opinion, and reasons. Ottava Rima , who are you to judge that a site has "little of critical quality?" The site a whole book on the life and works of Matthew Arnold, for one thing. Personal poetry is a very minor part of the site in question. There is no "soap" involved, period. The site was previously linked from Wikipedia for quite some time without a problem, before it was removed. So I added it because as it turns out Dancter was removing it, though I did not know then who was removing it or why. There was no malice on my part in doing this, and as I said, I will not do it again. Dovereg (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC).
- I can show you my work here dealing with criticism, or I can have people vouche for my real life credentials in the field of Romantic poetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the next step in this situation?
I will try to keep this brief, since the nub of the dispute is already documented fully at talk:Clarence Thomas, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence Thomas, and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas. The short story is that an edit war arose of the content of Clarence Thomas, with both sides accusing one another of POV and violating Wikipedia policy; page protection, a medcab request that went nowhere, and a mediation request that will be rejected because one of the parties to the dispute just lied the mediation folks by refusing consent on the grounds that the matter was already settled, ensued. Since user:RafaelRGarcia has thwarted every attempt to reach consensus, stonewalling efforts by myself and user:Ferrylodge and demonstrating continued intransigence and refusal to allow the article's correction, the resumption of an edit war when the block expires seems inevitable.
While I "have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute," as I see it, the dispute is "over the content of an article," which seems to place it beyond the ambit of arbitration.Wikipedia:DR#Last_resort:_Arbitration. What can I do next? Simon Dodd (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Simon Dodd's edits to the now-unprotected article, made today, ignored the discussion on the Medcab page entirely and set in his preference on all issues. I have changed these few small parts of the article to better reflect consensus. Admin Bearian joined in on the Medcab discussion to clear up a debate about WP policy, but Dodd ignored even this comment, lying and saying that the response was not relevant. Dodd insists on adding unverifiable, uncited claims to the Thomas article; this is the main point of contention, but the policy on Verifiability says this claim should not be allowed. User Ferrylodge has the same political views as Dodd, and the two tag-team on other political articles, like Unitary_executive_theory. He joined in late in this issue to tag team against me and corroborate what Dodd says. Anyway, I feel that the Medcab discussion cleared up the issues quite a bit, and that a consensus version of the page is now quite possible, unless Dodd insists having his way on every aspect of the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not even going to comment on this characterization of what happened at medcab. I invite interested parties to go and read the page for themselves.Simon Dodd (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
← How about a 0/1RR restriction? It could work. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Editnotices work surprising well for restrictions like that. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:1RR suggests that "[s]ome editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them." That approach has already been tried and failed, as the talk page discussion and the article's edit history makes clear. Discussion only works when both sides are willing to compromise, and are contributing in good faith to improve Wikipedia; Garcia has already rebutted the presumption of good faith time and again (most recently by the outright lie offered to the mediation committee that the issue was resolved), has made clear that he will not compromise (see, e.g., the medcab dispute on the section title "commerce clause"), and this dispute is precisely about Garcia's wikilawyering in service of preventing the improvement of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has to have some mechanism for dealing with users like him - for dealing with situations where discussion between two editors has proven unworkable, for resolving antithetical views on how an article should read. Simon Dodd (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Interested parties have read the discussions, and have found that your mischaracterization of RafaelRGarcia, Simon Dodd, is just as bad as, if not worse than, xyr mischaracterization of you. I thank you both for having a dispute that is actually on an interesting subject, and not on some sex scandal, though. ☺ For what it's worth, you're both wrong.
Simon Dodd, you're wrong in that if you have no source stating what someone's position on states' rights is, you have no business adding content that states a position for that person, however much you want to "balance" an opinion of that person published by an analyst. The correct application of the NPOV policy is to attribute the opinion to the person who holds it, so that it is presented as opinion, and not presented as if it were Wikipedia's opinion. One doesn't need to construct original counterarguments for opinions that one disagrees with. Correcting the rest of the world is not Wikipedia's place.
RafaelRGarcia, you're wrong in that Simon Dodd is not "deleting facts", and you're also wrong to try to present only one view out of what are clearly more than one in the article's introduction. Plenty of sources do not portray Thomas' rôle on the Court as you would have the article portrary it.
I suggest that both of you make an attempt to get out of this rut that you are in, because the "next step" in this situation is your both being limited in your edits by administrators. Be warned: To an impartial observer you're both at fault, and of the two of you there's no wholly right side to pick.
I find it highly surprising that neither of you has gone to look for more sources. You could cite Ingram's observation on Thomas and states' rights and judicial restraint (pp. 115 of ISBN 9781596985162), for example. Or you could use pp. 32–33 of ISBN 9780226294087; or pp. 329 of ISBN 9780226443416; or pp. 111–112 of ISBN 9781576073476; or pp.119–120 of ISBN 9780976678809; or pp. 155 of ISBN 9780813923031; or pp. 90 of ISBN 9780814775684. And that's just where I stopped looking. All of these deal with Thomas, and the SCOTUS in general, and states' rights, and show how complex the issue is, and how it shouldn't be falsely reduced and oversimplified to an issue of racial equality (as you are doing, Simon Dodd), and how Thomas is not some lone perennial minority dissenter (as you would have him portrayed, RafaelRGarcia). Indeed, yet another source, pp. 145 of ISBN 9780415232630, makes pretty much exactly this point about states' rights in relation to Thomas.
More attention to sources, less edit warring, and a willingness by both of you to leave the rut that you are stuck in, are needed. The proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, reading, using, and evaluating of sources. You both seem to erroneously think that the finding part is over. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Uncle G, without meaning to sound disputatious, just a few queries. First, could you be more specific on two points that went by me. You say that I have "mischaracteriz[ed]" Garcia; how, and where? Where have I "reduced and oversimplified to an issue of racial equality" the question of whether Justice Thomas has ever used the term "states' rights" in a published opinion? Second, you say that I shouldn't add something for which I don't have a source, but you are not addressing the key point that Garcia is demanding that I prove a negative. If Thomas has used the term - ever. As often as once - Garcia can destroy my position by citing it. He will not, because he can't; is the accuracy of the article to be held hostage for want of a published source stating the obvious? How, then, do you account for the examples given at MedCab (for example, the nuclear option case)? And third, I think it is only fair to note that I have done everything possible to "to leave the rut." I tried WP:BRD; Garcia rejected all attempts at finding compromise language. I took the issue to the talk page; Garcia rejected all attempts at compromise, even when a third editor got involved. I took it to medcab, and Garcia refused to even consider compromise language on even the most minor point at issue. I took it to mediation, and Garcia refused assent to mediation based on a lie. Concededly, I didn't try WP:Third opinion, but in light of everything else tried, see WP:SNOW. I don't know how I could possibly have shown more willing to forge ahead. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Concerning someone never saying something: As far as I know, the rule is that we can't make such an observation unless it has appeared in a reliable source; otherwise it's original research. There are many true things that we can't say for such technical reasons. This is the price we pay for having objective rules. So yes, although it's a bit counterintuitive you must prove a negative, and it's possible in principle. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hans, isn't that precisely the sort of absurd situation that WP:IAR exists to avoid? "Its purpose is to keep [rules] from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated. ... Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)"[6] How do you deal with the nuclear option statement mentioned at MedCab, that Congress did nothing about a particular problem in 1993 - is that one going on the ashpile, too? When I was editing the John G. Roberts article recently, there was another similar "prove a negative" situation that I got rid of for an unrelated reason; there are a lot of statements throughout Wikipedia that are unquestionably true (that is, can't be questioned in good faith, such as the assertion at issue here) but that are uncited and would be tough to cite. It seems to me that when Wikipedia policy seems to require an insane result that is detrimental to the encyclopædia, that is precisely the sort of situation for which the IAR escape hatch was designed, and that applies a fortiori in the context of WP:BLP. Simon Dodd (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know what needs to be done, you should cite every single opinion Thomas has given as proof he has never used the term "state's rights". </sarcasm> This is getting a bit out of hand, and now a whole section has been thrown together to try to refute a single source. Is that really necessary (and seems like some OR has been thrown in as well)? I'm not sure the article was ready for unprotection, and it doesn't seem like these editors are discussing that much or playing nice. Perhaps a RFC could bring more opinions to the table to help settle issues, or if the edit warring continues, locking the article again.-Andrew c [talk] 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- personally, I tend to like the solution in matters like this of asking both the individuals involved to avoid contributing to the article for a period of time, so that other editors can fix it. (I do have an opinion about who is the more reasonable of the two, but that is not immediately relevant to the question of how to go forward). he person whose view of the matter i do agree with is Uncle G (as I usually do)./ As admins have the power to block both eds for a time for edit warring, we have the power to give them a partial block only, though there are no technical means for automatically enforcing it. DGG (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know what needs to be done, you should cite every single opinion Thomas has given as proof he has never used the term "state's rights". </sarcasm> This is getting a bit out of hand, and now a whole section has been thrown together to try to refute a single source. Is that really necessary (and seems like some OR has been thrown in as well)? I'm not sure the article was ready for unprotection, and it doesn't seem like these editors are discussing that much or playing nice. Perhaps a RFC could bring more opinions to the table to help settle issues, or if the edit warring continues, locking the article again.-Andrew c [talk] 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Andrew, the sarcasm is unproductive and misplaced. What would you have me do? If I was asserting that Thomas had used the term, I would cite the case in which he used it. It has been demanded that I prove a negative by citing a source, and the only way to prove a negative is to cite every single instance in which it could possibly have occurred but didn't. So I did just that. Is that a ridiculous result? You bet. But I'm not the one who made it necessary.
- I would also emphasize that my edit was made with great care to comply with WP:OR. That policy is very clear on this point. It allows primary sources to be cited when they "have been reliably published," as the U.S. Reports have been, "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." That standard is, beyond any serious doubt, met by the footnote I added: I did not "interpret[]" the primary source material at all; the only use I put it to was a descriptive claim (it supports the descriptive claim that none of those opinions contain the words "states' rights"); and it requires no specialist knowledge at all to check those opinions to confirm that they do not contain the words "states' rights." WP:OR further rejects "original research or original thought ... includ[ing] unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Here, there are no unpublished facts or arguments, original thoughts, speculation, or ideas - merely the statement that none of those cases contain the words states' rights. It might be irrelevant to edit Altria Group v. Good to state that Justice Thomas' opinion in that case does not contain the words "a moo cow says what"; it might even be vandalism - but it would not be original research. And if it is not original research to state that one opinion does not contain a particular phrase, it cannot be original research to state that many opinions do not contain that phrase. (And if the response is that I'm sticking to the letter of WP:OR rather than considering its purpose, my reply is that invocation of WP:IAR is precisely what I've been saying all along.) Simon Dodd (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I should add - Andrew, I'm not at all opposed to an RFC, but as I mentioned above, I took the issue to medcab and tried to take it to mediation, neither of which has any purposes beside "bring[ing] more opinions to the table to help settle issues"; neither helped. I filed a request for third opinions about William Rehnquist (see [7]; [8]), and it hasn't brought in a single additional voice. I'm certainly willing to give it a try - but I really find it insulting that there seems to be not a whit of recognition here that at every turn, I've been trying to get outside input on the article, been trying to find consensus, been trying to involve other editors. It is not me who's the problem here. Simon Dodd (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)This article definitely could use semi-protection, to stop edit-warring and vandalizing by IPs.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind. I guess there's not enough trouble to warrant semi-protection.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Rangeblock 4.138.53.0/25
I have rangeblocked these addresses belonging to Level 3 Communications Inc. for three hours due to multiple IP vandalism on Carolina Forest High School. Trusilver 08:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia at step 5
Classic Internet service trajectory.
- Inception
- Utility
- Popularity
- Emergence of "regulars" or in Wikipedia's case "editors"
- Takeover by "regulars"
- Loss of Utility
- Obscurity
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.129.190 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- [citation needed]. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Afaik, the "regulars" have always controlled Wikipedia, so there isn't anything to "takeover". Who are the "regulars", anyway? - theFace 11:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- yes, project reached step 5 before either 2 or 3 -- Gurch (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- A regular editor is a happy editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- yes, project reached step 5 before either 2 or 3 -- Gurch (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Afaik, the "regulars" have always controlled Wikipedia, so there isn't anything to "takeover". Who are the "regulars", anyway? - theFace 11:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It of course depends on what you consider an "internet service". Many "internet services" have been strictly regulated from the start, and there is not much sense in applying step 4 (or 5). E.g. Google, Amazon, ... have no regulars (or alternatively have only regulars, paid employees). They have so far not faded into obscurity. Other internet services which were more unregulated at the start but added more rules later one are things like Youtube (and perhaps Facebok and Flickr as well). They ahve not faded into obscurity. On the other hand, many of the major "internet services" that have faded have just been made obsolete by competitors (if you think search engine X is vastly superior to your older search engine Y, then you drop Y like a stone). Perhaps some examples of which "internet services" have actually followed the "classic trajectory" would be more enlightening. Fram (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, I can't think of anything this would apply to. Perhaps its because they've all faded into obscurity, or perhaps because its made up... Mr.Z-man 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the original poster referred to various internet fora, message boards, chatrooms, discussion boards and suchlike, which originally were very open and welcoming for newcomers, but as time passed became dominated by 'established' or 'regular' users to such extent that new users no longer felt welcome there. I think Wikipedia is not at this stage yet!
- There is, however, a separate and different issue; at the beginning (say around 2002-2004) the community of Wikipedians was one of highly-motivated, selfless, dedicated users who had the best of the project at heart. However, as Wikipedia itself grew, it began to attract all sorts of people for all the wrong reasons -- because it could gratify their egos, or promote their [non-notable] websites or companies, or their pet scientific theories or world-views... Well, that's the price that comes with popularity; let's hope Wikipedia will not be swamped by all the selfish attempts to manipulate it, and still remains a neutral, non-partisan, free source of information for everybody... 131.111.17.247 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- That does appear to be the original poster's intended subject -- online communities. Slashdot would be one example (originally it did reflect the general consensus of the technology community, but by 2001/2002 it had become overrun by the wanna-bes & fanboys, which led to the interesting & thoughtful folk moving on.) But the dynamics of any community -- online or reallife -- is far more complex than the OP's thesis implies. (I can supply some links to discussions of community dynamics if anyone is interested.) As the Face notes above, there have always been regulars on Wikipedia; the regulars is not the problem -- if you believe that there is a problem. However, the old generation of regulars appear to have mostly moved on (except for people like me who probably should find something better to do with my time), & the new generation of regulars have different ideas about how Wikipedia should operate -- some good, some bad. In short, this is not the Wikipedia of, say, 2003/2004, & no amount of kvetching or policy reforms will change that. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Haha, awesome. They inevitably compare Wikipedia and Brittanica implying in the same sentence that Brittanica is becoming more open while WP closing. Right, now it's Brittanica 'the free encyclopedia'[...]'anyone can edit'. 194.75.236.70 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- So, what are you doing here then? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- To note: the article linked is two years old. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a recent discussion by the ABC. Ironic that a newspaper article criticising Wikipedia itself has errors. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
//roux 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to take this. User:Garden/WikiCup is "a championship which takes place every year on Wikipedia", where participants get points for things such as writing featured articles. So far, pretty harmless, as long as the normal standards are applied. (A different case did actually have a negative effect even there.) I'm concerned about the WikiCup's effect on did you know, a section of the main page where "interesting" facts from recently-created or expanded articles are included. However, there's no real way to apply a standard to whether something is interesting, so there is an incentive for editors to contribute hooks that are not actually interesting, simply to get points in the game. I don't know if having mundane facts in a major section of the main page is a big problem, but it's certainly less than ideal, and this game seems to be negatively affecting our main page. Can anything be done about this? --NE2 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Proposed hooks may be denied at any time, so I don't really see a problem. Also, there was a recent lull in activity at T:TDYK, so I think the WikiCup is doing an excellent job of encouraging participation. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- What may happen and what does happen are not the same in many cases, including this one. --NE2 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is too soon to claim you're hurt. Only three people have more than 5 DYKs, one of which is me; as I am one of the "king of DYKs", the WikiCup has little effect on my production. As of Sunday 60 contestants made 85 DYKs, only slightly more than one a person. NBD.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hurt? Excuse me? --NE2 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ecx3)Let's see, you've already tried to delete this, if memory serves. And now you're forumshopping to ANI? Take a look at the editors involved in this game which--this really bears repeating--is simply a fun way to make a concerted effort to improve Wikipedia content. Can you point to DYK hooks that have been nominated due to the competition, and passed to the main page, that shouldn't have been? You are aware, of course, that the DYK process has not changed and that any hooks proposed by anyone in the competition must go through the normal verification and approval process?
- I have a much, much better idea: go away and do something else. The Cup is only trying to improve content, and nothing more. Your antipathy towards it is weird and misguided. Adding after ec: I can only assume that Bedford meant 'butthurt'. I leave it to you to Google for the meaning of the term. //roux 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tried to delete what?
- My objection is that, while it may be trying to improve content, it is having the opposite effect on the main page. --NE2 17:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, what you actually did was make a ridiculous WP:POINTy edit bitching about the Cup being some sort of MMORPG. I notice that you're not actually providing any links to any of these supposedly bad DYKs. Looks to me like you're just bitching about the cup (again) and finding another way to do so. Why don't you run along and go do something constructive instead, hmm? //roux 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you give us specific hooks/examples? Which ones are you complaining about? Randomly lobbing accusations without diffs is going to get you nowhere... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hurt? Excuse me? --NE2 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- DYK has had no problem putting non-interesting things on the main page before, I don't see why this will have a significant impact on that. Mr.Z-man 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It means that a participant has an incentive to take to DYK a boring fact that otherwise would not have been submitted. --NE2 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Boring" is subjective, first of all. Additionally, there is always an incentive to nominate DYK hooks—how has it changed because of the WikiCup? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It means that a participant has an incentive to take to DYK a boring fact that otherwise would not have been submitted. --NE2 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This has now been mentioned at User talk:Garden/WikiCup#WikiCup mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, meaning we'll have a disproportionate number of comments from players. --NE2 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- AN isn't hidden from WikiCup players... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing the point - they wouldn't normally end up here, but roux has already shown up and started attacking me. --NE2 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Attacking? Hah. You have some sort of weird antipathy towards this--I'll repeat again, since it seems you missed it the first time I told you on December 23rd--friendly competition that is only trying to improve Wikipedia content. Moreover, you didn't notify anyone as to this posting, which you're required to do. You also have refused to provide links to any of these supposedly awful DYK hooks. So you're sort of.. hmm.. there's a word for what you're doing, but I'll leave it to you to figure out what it is. In any case, xeno has marked this as resolved. Oh, and have you looked at the list of people in the Cup? Many, many are regulars at AN and ANI, so.. //roux 17:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, perhaps we shouldn't go around trying to shoot down good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia? That seems like a good way to avoid attacks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing the point - they wouldn't normally end up here, but roux has already shown up and started attacking me. --NE2 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd have thought that informing a group of editors that they have been mentioned at AN was common courtesy, not cause for complaint. I don't particularly see why this is at AN. This doesn't involve admin tools - discussions at T:TDYK are open to non-admins, its just the actual update that needs an admin. Personally I'd have thought that if the number of DYK candidates is increased, but the rate at which they are updated remains the same, the number of interesting DYKs goes up. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, when the number of candidates is increased, the frequency of updating is too. --NE2 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This does not appear to require admin intervention. Please discuss on the relevant talk page(s). Thanks, Majorly talk 18:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- If I wanted ten times the abuse you see above, sure, I'd do that. If I wanted people who are not playing this game, I'd go somewhere neutral, like here. --NE2 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read what Majorly said. This doesn't require administrative assistance, and as such it is just cluttering up this page. Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It requires assistance in keeping these hooks off the main page. It requires assistance in keeping Wikipedia about writing an encyclopedia. --NE2 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)And given that someone neutral has closed this as resolved three times now, what is that telling you, hmm? Really, it looks like you got your knickers in a twist about one DYK, got shot down about it being included, decided to editwar at the relevant page, and have now scraped up another lame justification for not including the DYK on the front page. Get over it. This requires no admin intervention because there is no problem. //roux 18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- After ec: 'these hooks'? You're complaining about one. Which you had already been shot down about elsewhere, had editwarred over, had whined at Juliancolton about already... the forumshopping is bad. Just walk away. You have refused to provide diffs of all these hooks which Must! Be! Kept! Off! The! Main! Page! which suggests to any rational person that the diffs simply do not exist. If you're so hellbent on writing an encyclopedia, how about you stop wasting everyone's time and go.. umm.. wait it'll come to me... oh yeah! Go write an encyclopedia. //roux 18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read what Majorly said. This doesn't require administrative assistance, and as such it is just cluttering up this page. Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi NE2, and anyone else reading this who is concerned that the Wikicup might degenerate from a legit positive competition into a game; if you have concerns that a specific contestant is debasing the system and devaluing DYK, GA FA or any other part of Wikipedia, can I suggest you first raise your concern with whichever of us has done something that you don't like, and if that doesn't resolve the matter have a discrete word with the WikiCup judges. WereSpielChequers 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC) (representing Rapa Nui in the cup)
- Endorse tagging this thread as resolved. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Crimson Glory - Astronomica is blacklisted?
I noticed that there is no page for this album, and tried to create it but it appears to be on some blacklist. The article I tried to create matches the link on the Crimson Glory band page, it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomica_(album) Could an administrator please create the album stub page so it can be edited and filled with content? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebelraser (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reverted back Astronomica (album) to stub version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
User: Daveschaffer
user:Daveschaffer has removed the speedy delete ((db-inc)) tags from his article Data Robotics, Inc THREE times, despite being warned after 1st, and 2nd removal of same. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest listing the articles again, then, failing that, just waiting until he gets banned. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This uber-crappy file could probably ultimately be deleted, but it was overwritten today by a non-free album cover (presumably someone didn't notice the file already exists warning). I've reverted to the old (orphaned) image, but presumably the old revision needs deleting or hiding, since it's non-free. I'd have slapped a tag on the image, but couldn't find an appropriate one to use, so I'm reporting it here instead. Cheers, Stannered (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Weird issue. Plenty of notability, well-sourced and fairly well-written article...but the username makes me a bit suspect. COI, spam name block or ? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Reads like an advert to me - sent in the flamethrowers - as for the other issues - could be.--Cameron Scott (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like spam to me and the competitions sound well... dodgy. Needs a look from some experts. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I was thinking of hitting the speedy button, but it seemed kind of borderline. Someone pass me a flamethrower and a fire suit, please...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Vicious Kitten Records - Not deleting an article on author's request?
Hi all. As some knwo, I am a newbie admin (still), so I stumble upon problems sometimes, which I don't know how to answer. Vicious Kitten Records is one of them. The page existed for 3 years but was not edited beyond minor corrections. The author expressed that he wants the page deleted and someone tagged it G7. I reviewed it and I thought it serves our interests as an encyclopedia best to keep the page despite the request (as WP:CSD allows admins to decide). Do you (= faithful readers of AN) think that was the correct way to treat it? And what do I tell the creator who still wants the page deleted? Regards SoWhy 07:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as I see it, I think you were right is declining deletion. Nobody owns the articles, and simply because it is tagged/blanked by creator is not a reason to delete. This might apply only in cases where G7 is used in fairly nascent stage or to a particularly poor article at an early stage. Having said that, I tried to search for notability of the subject, and did not receive any great hits. In light of this, I would suggest that a procedural nomination be made at the AfD where other editors can ponder the notability of the subject and decide whether to keep it or not. LeaveSleaves 08:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that G7 deletion would have been inappropriate (since G7 "does not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject"). Agree that the author seems to have ownership issues; I would tell the author to nominate the article at AfD if so desired, rather than make a procedural nomination myself. BencherliteTalk 08:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Special:Statistics page needs link changed
I created a Wikipedia:Bots page. the "Bots" link at Special:Statistics should now be linked to it rather than to Wikipedia:Bot policy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Assyrian/Syriac issue
hello, to get you in the context of things, there was an issue between assyrianists and arameanists about the 'assyrian people page' arameanists claim that Syriacs are not assyrians rather arameans, while assyrians claim syriacs are infact assyrians. Long story short, some admins got involved and we compromised that the pages should be one, and that instead of just "Assyrian" they be "Assyrian/Syriac" or "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac", as seen here: [[9]], and [[10]]. This was the norm for a while and everyone was happy. User:The TriZ took liberty of changing all previous "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac" and everyone was fine with that too. Now the issue is that when I tried to do the exact same thing he did but changing "Syriac" to "Assyrian/Syriac" he undoes my posts ... I ask for explanation, and he asks for sources (mind you he provided no sources for Syriac), then I provide him with sources, and he does want to continue to discuss the issue. He impliments his POV in every page without any sources, and when we try to put the accepted neutral stance of "Assyrian/Syriac" title (Which he agreed upon) he is against it. This is POV at its fullest. The pages I am talking about are: [[11]], [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], and he recently changed "Assyrian" to "Syriac" just recently on this page [[15]]. I have asked him as to why he keeps doing this on this talkpage but as you will see he does want to discuss. P.S. his moves threaten the neutral "Assyrian/Syriac" titles implemented by admins, If he continues like this then what is the point of keeping his changes from "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac"? Malik Danno (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The people watching Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts may be better suited to addressing this issue. -Andrew c [talk] 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok thanx, Ill just copy and paste what I stated above. Malik Danno (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Block times
I'd like to adjust block times drop-down so that "indefinite" is at the bottom of the list. This would make the ordering logical, with the shortest blocks at the top and the longest at the bottom. Logical ordering would make the drop-down more intuitive, especially to new administrators. Thoughts? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indefinite is one of the most common, so it should be at the top. I think it used to be at both top & bottom for some time. Kusma (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I should point out the obvious that "indefinite" isn't necessarily the longest block time, since it's an indeterminate amount of time. It could, theoretically, be the shortest. I think we should leave it where it is... –xeno (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Never fails. Someone always shows up to point that out. :) Synergy 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Accounts that are blocked indefinitely are typically things like inappropriate user names and thus are rarely unblocked, making "indefinite" the same as "infinite". —Remember the dot (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Typically yes, but even those are unblocked for requesting another username. Synergy 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec*2)On the subject of this, is the 5-year option not a bit unnecessary, how often does someone get that long a block?--Jac16888Talk 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think open proxies receive 5 year blocks. –xeno (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ecx2) Yes, for open proxies. Synergy 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Open proxies, in my experience, receive block times of only 2 years... -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ecx2) Yes, for open proxies. Synergy 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd prefer "indef" remain on top. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. (should be obvious, considering I undid the change to the MediaWiki page...) J.delanoygabsadds 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's far more convenient for indefinite to be at the top. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer it at the top. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, if that's what everyone else prefers then that's fine. Sorry to cause such a controversy. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer it at the top. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's far more convenient for indefinite to be at the top. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. (should be obvious, considering I undid the change to the MediaWiki page...) J.delanoygabsadds 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wrongly indefinitely blocked a few weeks ago. Indefinite blocks should not be done. 1 year blocks are better for everything except inappropriate names. Even people who murder are often given multi-year sentences, not lifetime sentences. This would encourage rehabilitation. I have been editing for 1.5 years and suddenly, boom, blocked for life. Administrators must be very careful to be ombudsmen, not trigger happy goons who block with fun and sadistic satisfaction. By being nice ombudsmen, WP gets better. Spevw (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- You were accidentally blocked for a total of 9 minutes, before the admin responsible noticed and unblocked without prompting, it was over a month before you even realised. I would hardly call that a life sentence, or the result of a sadistic trigger-happy goon--Jac16888Talk 03:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Possible unapproved bot being run
I quote this from User talk:Anomie:
“ | ==My bot==
Will run and continue to become more improved weither you like it or not because I dont give a damn about approval and it may not look like much but in time it will be perfected just like any other bot on Wikipedia. WP:IAR states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." well I am applying that to my bot so it can IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN this aging collection of knowledge that everyone has spent there time on Earth helped make reality. AndysCrogz1 (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
” |
Normally this might go on wikietiquitte alerts, but since AndysCrogz1 implies here he/she is running an unapproved bot, this needs to be handled by an admin.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Already blocked as a banned sock of some other user. MBisanz talk 19:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Its not a real bot. Look at the edits. Its quite clearly someone just acting like a bot. This is the second instance of this. Its blatant sockpuppetry combined with vandalism/trolling. The first "bot" was supposedly written in Flash and the second supposedly had an AI addon despite using AWB. Either this person is an amazing programmer but is otherwise completely clueless or its just random disruption. Mr.Z-man 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Clarification by motion relating to arbitration enforcement restriction
The Arbitration Committee has amended the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin by successful motion, archived here, to include two clarifications of the initial remedy.
Effective immediately, the restriction applies only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users. It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. This is a provisional measure, pending the resolution of the arbitration enforcement request for comment. Furthermore, the Committee observed that administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution, and that the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard.
For the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oi vey. So saying "If you do/don't do X I'll block you under AE clause" is not an action under AE clause? Is that what this means? Further, if Admin A says "don't do X per ArbCom" then Admin B says "no, that warning was way too much" where does that leave the user? Where does that leave the admins, more to the point?
brenneman 02:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)