Arcticocean (talk | contribs) m rv |
Ignocrates (talk | contribs) →Smell test: a few more |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
Would it be possible for you to remove the <nowiki>{{procedural policy}}</nowiki> template from your page [[User:AGK/CU]]? Right now, your user page shows up in [[:Category:Wikipedia policies]] as being a policy page. The template inserts categories on to pages they are used automatically so the only solutions are editing the template or removing the template from the page. Since it's a policy template used on other pages where that is a valid category, I think it would be simpler to remove the template tag from your page. <br> |
Would it be possible for you to remove the <nowiki>{{procedural policy}}</nowiki> template from your page [[User:AGK/CU]]? Right now, your user page shows up in [[:Category:Wikipedia policies]] as being a policy page. The template inserts categories on to pages they are used automatically so the only solutions are editing the template or removing the template from the page. Since it's a policy template used on other pages where that is a valid category, I think it would be simpler to remove the template tag from your page. <br> |
||
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 21:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC) |
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 21:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Smell test == |
|||
AGK, would you please check out the following IPs? The long history of editing on multiple, related IPs seems really unusual to me. |
|||
Gospel of Matthew article |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.181 101.119.15.181] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=596705658&oldid=596285332 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.14.65 101.119.14.65] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=596744351&oldid=596734128 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.127 101.119.15.127] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=596833369&oldid=596744351 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.157 101.119.15.157] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=596844990&oldid=596833369 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.46 101.119.15.46] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=596864683&oldid=596844990 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.14.74 101.119.14.74] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=598375446&oldid=598372310 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.125 101.119.15.125] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=598973376&oldid=598930166 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.14.210 101.119.14.210] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=599101690&oldid=599074084 diff1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=599104380&oldid=599102412 diff2]; |
|||
Gospel of Matthew talk page |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.14.181 101.119.14.181] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGospel_of_Matthew&diff=596705067&oldid=596137300 diff]; |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.210 101.119.15.210] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGospel_of_Matthew&diff=599103608&oldid=599103270 diff1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGospel_of_Matthew&diff=599104030&oldid=599103727 diff2]; |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.14.122 101.119.14.122] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGospel_of_Matthew&diff=599122153&oldid=599112514 diff]; |
|||
Gospel of Matthew mediation page and mediator's talk page |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.14.82 101.119.14.82] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FHebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=596655037&oldid=596654354 diff]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.65 101.119.15.65] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FHebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=596740560&oldid=596738815 diff1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndrevan&diff=596744401&oldid=596686311 diff2] |
|||
The IP complained about being excluded from mediation and recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nurse_scheduling_problem&diff=prev&oldid=599102190 trouted] the nominator of a AfD. That's not the type of behavior one would expect from a new or inexperienced user. Something doesn't pass the smell test. Is this, perhaps, a banned or vanished user? [[User:Ignocrates|Ignocrates]] ([[User talk:Ignocrates|talk]]) 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, these IPs from recent edits which don't involve the Gospel of Matthew: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.14.172 101.119.14.172], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.14.81 101.119.14.81], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.81 101.119.15.81], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.2 101.119.15.2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.14.120 101.119.14.120], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.119.15.102 101.119.15.102]. They are obviously coming from the same geographical location. [[User:Ignocrates|Ignocrates]] ([[User talk:Ignocrates|talk]]) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:56, 11 March 2014
GOCE February blitz wrapup
Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
|
Hi AGK, please could you give me some comments on the peer review here? Thanks, Matty.007 11:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand if you don't want to, but if you don't please can you tell me? Thanks, Matty.007 19:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Accounts blocked on 12 February
ChickenWalker and the two unused accounts are probably Kumioko, but the other four look unrelated. One of them appears to be using their real name and made their first edits before the original Kumioko account was created. Peter James (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. Unblocked, with prejudice to reblocking if the accounts start quacking. AGK [•] 01:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I've turned off pings
Just a heads-up that I've turned off "mention" pings, because I am receiving too many. Anybody who requires my attention at a discussion will need to notify me of it on this page. I've also semi-protected this talk page, as a certain banned individual is editing it without authorisation. Thanks! AGK [•] 16:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you unprotect this tpl so I can move it? I don't know if it's ever had 'over 1000' transclusions, but it currently has 1, not in mainspace. — Lfdder (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Lfdder: It probably will have had that many transclusions at one point, though I can't explain why there are so few now. I have reduced the template's protection to allow you to move it. AGK [•] 12:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove talk page comments
From other peoples talk pages. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- And unclear why you removed Will's ability to comment on his talk page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Rationale for removal of Will Beback’s ability to edit his talk page?
Can you explain the rationale for removing Will Beback’s ability to edit his own talk page after he posted a ban appeal to his talk page? Using one's talk page to appeal a ban or block is not usually considered disruptive. Also, the policy page wp:ARBPOL#Forms_of_proceeding that you cited does not say that it is forbidden to appeal a ban publicly; it only says that “Appeals by blocked, banned, or similarly restricted users are usually conducted by email.” Cardamon (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, the case page you cited when removing talk page access at 14:55, 6 March 2014 says " ... After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, ... ," which does not say the appeal must be by e-mail. Cardamon (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. I asked the same question above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this change be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions? —rybec 10:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. I asked the same question above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm entirely uninvolved, as far as I remember. (True, I have a poor memory for usernames.) I too have blocked a few people in my time, but I'm very surprised by this additional prohibition. I don't see anything in Will Beback's single post that's objectionable. True, WP:BAN says that somebody who's site-banned usually doesn't have access to their own talk page, but it also says how banned editors may use their talk page, and I see nothing about Will Beback's message that violates this in letter or spirit. Please consider reversing yourself here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your messages. Will Beback posted a message which at first blush appeared to proclaim his innocence and reframe the appeal away from the central issue of whether he would be likely to commit the same offences if unbanned. I was concerned that this would turn community opinion even more sharply against him, and endanger the chances of his current ArbCom appeal being successful.
Separately from why Will should not wish for this message to be kept in the public record, there are several clear reasons why it is in any event impermissible:
- Will was never entitled to edit his talk page, because he is banned at the direction of ArbCom. We require appeals to be conducted by email; when the arbitration says "he may appeal his ban", committee procedures mean that appeal must be by email. When the banning policy explains how banned users may use their talk page, it does not take into account the fact that Will is not entitled to a public hearing, as he was banned by the committee—and committee appeals are only heard by email.
- The banning policy means bans apply to all editing, good or bad, so Will was not entitled to edit his talk page regardless of the merits of what he posted.
- When Doc James restored Will's submission (thereby, in any event, doing him a disservice in the appeal), he proxied for a banned editor. WP:PROXYING requires Doc James to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Will's submission does not pass that test.
I have therefore re-blanked the talk page. Given that policy clearly prohibits Will's submission being made to his talk page, it must not be restored.
I will indeed log the talk page revocation at the TimidGuy ban appeal log. As a footnote, talk page access is not routinely revoked simply as a courtesy to users banned by the Arbitration Committee. It is expected and required by policy that they not edit their talk page; exceptions cannot be made. AGK [•] 09:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- If the committee is being courteous, why are banned editors blocked and tagged at all? NE Ent 18:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting logic. It appears that you are not interested in the wider community seeing the appeal. Care to explain why?
- With respect to WP:PROXYING the comments restored were productive also I am not editing at the direction of a banned editor. I am not sure how you can state they are not productive? Is no one allowed to look at arbcom rulings other than arbcom? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello AGK, thank you for answering. However, you misunderstand the Wikipedia banning policy you've linked to with your remark "The banning policy means bans apply to all editing, good or bad, so Will was not entitled to edit his talk page regardless of the merits of what he posted." Concerning banned editors' access to their talk pages, the policy says
Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.
[...]
Editors who cannot edit any page except their talk page may: Post an appeal or comment there and ask (by email or other off-site means) for it to be reposted to the appropriate discussion. This is a voluntary act, and should not be abused or used to excess.
Will you respond to the comment by Cardamon of 03:44, 7 March (the first comment in this section)? I too see a difference between usually and always. If your statements reflect the current wishes of the committee, then WP:ARBPOL should be updated. —rybec 03:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in but I'm really puzzled by what you saying here, Rybec. He posted on his talk page on 4 March; his appeal had been sent in to ArbCom per normal by email some weeks before. The purpose of the 4 March post cannot therefore have been to appeal as one had already been filed and was well underway.
On the other issue, ARBPOL is accurate enough. We handle appeals from our own decisions as well as a very large number referred by the community and very occasionally appeals of Jimmy's actions. ArbCom appeals are always by email; community appeals are nearly always by email though we do occasionally arrange public soundings where community consensus in a ban discussion wasn't very clear. At some point, hopefully, the community will accept responsibly for their own appeals but there has been little or no enthusiasm for doing so thus far. Roger Davies talk 05:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in but I'm really puzzled by what you saying here, Rybec. He posted on his talk page on 4 March; his appeal had been sent in to ArbCom per normal by email some weeks before. The purpose of the 4 March post cannot therefore have been to appeal as one had already been filed and was well underway.
- @Roger Davies:, As you know, I don't have access to the Arbitration Committee's e-mail. My only knowledge of what's transpired there comes from what is posted on Wikipedia. Before your comment, the only information I had about it was a remark by an IP editor who said [1] "Will submitted his latest request somewhere in January. Now is the March, and he still got no response." The comment was later deleted and the IP address has been blocked. I can't tell from your remark whether the IP editor's comment is true, but if it is then Will Beback's posting of an unblocking request on his talk page seems reasonable.
- When someone reads in WP:ARBPOL “Appeals by blocked, banned, or similarly restricted users are usually conducted by email” how is the reader to know that "ArbCom appeals are always by email"? Is that information posted elsewhere? —rybec 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- It probably is somewhere though I can't guarantee it. But as it only affects the tiny number of people that ArbCom bans (typically one or two a year) it's scarcely critical. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that there was no need to post at all given the appeal had already been filed and was already being discussed by email. Roger Davies talk 06:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
AN
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The Committee takes a great deal of unfair criticism, much of it totally detached from reality. However, this criticism is partially avoidable. Many members of the community dislike secret lists and fora. The parliaments, congresses, and courts of law around the world manage to conduct most business in public, with very limited exceptions for state secrets. If the Committee restricted arbwiki and mailing list discussion to ONLY those parts of cases which genuinely REQUIRE confidentiality, and did much of the other "formulation" and "deliberation" work on-wiki, this would decrease the sekrit conspiracy criticisms. I believe if the community had to vote on the proposition: "NO arbitration business or discussion may be conducted in private, OTHER than individual messages wherein provable and unavoidable personal information sharing must occur" it would experience wide support. Open meeting laws regarding municipal councils in most of the U.S. actually require ALL conversations to occur in public - for a majority of commissioners to meet privately would be illegal in some cases - this due to the fact that public scrutiny is desired by many. Now this may sound silly to you, but I in good faith suggest that this is one major reason you get the bizarre anti-Committee backlash on many occasions. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, "political pressure" can be read as "responsive to the electorate," depending on what side of any given issue a person stands on. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- 50.45.159.150, I think it is unlikely for the Arbitration Committee to rewrite its policies based on your suggestion. If you are seeking such a substantial change, I think you should go to the WP:Village Pump and get support for your idea there. If it does have the potential to get widespread support, you can post your proposal at WP:VPR and get some feedback. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Minor edit
Hello, AGK,
Would it be possible for you to remove the {{procedural policy}} template from your page User:AGK/CU? Right now, your user page shows up in Category:Wikipedia policies as being a policy page. The template inserts categories on to pages they are used automatically so the only solutions are editing the template or removing the template from the page. Since it's a policy template used on other pages where that is a valid category, I think it would be simpler to remove the template tag from your page.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Smell test
AGK, would you please check out the following IPs? The long history of editing on multiple, related IPs seems really unusual to me.
Gospel of Matthew article 101.119.15.181 diff; 101.119.14.65 diff; 101.119.15.127 diff; 101.119.15.157 diff; 101.119.15.46 diff; 101.119.14.74 diff; 101.119.15.125 diff; 101.119.14.210 diff1, diff2;
Gospel of Matthew talk page 101.119.14.181 diff; 101.119.15.210 diff1, diff2; 101.119.14.122 diff;
Gospel of Matthew mediation page and mediator's talk page 101.119.14.82 diff; 101.119.15.65 diff1, diff2
The IP complained about being excluded from mediation and recently trouted the nominator of a AfD. That's not the type of behavior one would expect from a new or inexperienced user. Something doesn't pass the smell test. Is this, perhaps, a banned or vanished user? Ignocrates (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, these IPs from recent edits which don't involve the Gospel of Matthew: 101.119.14.172, 101.119.14.81, 101.119.15.81, 101.119.15.2, 101.119.14.120, 101.119.15.102. They are obviously coming from the same geographical location. Ignocrates (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)