→mail ping: new section |
Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 285: | Line 285: | ||
{{You've got mail}} |
{{You've got mail}} |
||
--[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 12:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC) |
--[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 12:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Request of Removal Last Sanction == |
|||
I'm looking to remove the last sanction (number one) from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eurodyne&oldid=628800161 here]. [[User:Eurodyne|eurodyne]] ([[User talk:Eurodyne|talk]]) 05:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== User:Gurumayum Arvind == |
|||
Hi DeltaQuad. You recently blocked a number of socks of {{u|Gurumayum Arvind}}. I think they might be at it again as [[:Special:Contributions/45.127.136.69]]. The articles edited are the same and the same edits are being made. Seems like [[:WP:DUCK]] to me, so I 'd appreciate it if you take a look. Thanks in advance. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 10:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi again DeltaQuad. Just want to let you know that 45.127.136.69 was blocked by {{u|Drmies}} and another sock 45.127.138.6 was blocked by {{u|CactusWriter}}. There, however, appears to be a new possible "duck" [[:Special:Contributions/45.127.138.24]] who is bascially editing the same articles and making the same types of edits. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 13:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::DQ, will you do a rangeblock for under $10? [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*I wrote them up at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurumayum Arvind]]. {{U|Marchjuly}}, thanks for the alert. Keep 'em coming. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**Psst, DQ, some vandal put a weird little flaggie on your talk page, top right. Doesn't look very properly 'Murican to me. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2016/02|Tech News: 2016-02]] == |
|||
<section begin="technews-2016-W02"/><div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr"><div class="plainlinks"> |
|||
Latest '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News|tech news]]''' from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2016/02|Translations]] are available. |
|||
'''Recent changes''' |
|||
* Wikimedia no longer uses visitor statistics from [[w:en:ComScore|comScore]]. [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ComScore/Announcement] |
|||
* You can make interactive graphs with the [[mw:Extension:Graph|Graph extension]]. There is now a [[mw:Extension:Graph/Interactive Graph Tutorial|tutorial for how to do this]]. [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-December/084416.html] |
|||
'''Problems''' |
|||
* Some pages do not turn in up in categories where they should be. This is because link tables are sometimes not populated. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T117332] |
|||
'''Changes this week''' |
|||
* The [[mw:Extension:Nuke|Nuke extension]] will work with [[mw:Flow|Flow]]. This will make it easier to handle spam in Flow. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115695] |
|||
* New file uploads will now be patrollable. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T11501] |
|||
* Internet Explorer 8 will no longer have [[w:en:JavaScript|JavaScript]] support. You will [[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Compatibility#Basic|still be able to browse and edit Wikipedia]] if you use Internet Explorer 8, but will not be able to use some features. This can be solved by upgrading to a newer version or switching to a different browser. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T118303][https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2015-November/001286.html] |
|||
'''Meetings''' |
|||
* <span title="Recurrent item"> [[File:Octicons-sync.svg|12px|link=]]</span> You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on [http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=20&min=00&sec=0&day=12&month=01&year=2016 12 January at 20:00 (UTC)]. See [[mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings|how to join]]. |
|||
'''Future changes''' |
|||
* <span title="Advanced item">[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|15px|link=]]</span> URLs in the recent changes IRC feed will no longer be rewritten to unencrypted HTTP. This could be a breaking change for bots dependent on the IRC feed. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T122933] |
|||
* The edit tabs for the wikitext editor and the visual editor will be combined to one single edit tab. You will be able to choose which one you prefer. If you are not logged in, your choice will be saved as a cookie in your browser. You [[m:Special:MyLanguage/VisualEditor/Newsletter/2015/December|can test the single edit tab]]. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T102398][https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/VisualEditor/Newsletter/2015/December] |
|||
* There is a beta feature that [[mw:Beta Features/Other projects sidebar|adds links to the subject on other Wikimedia projects]]. This works much like the links to for example Wikipedia articles in other languages. It will go out of beta testing and be enabled for everyone in January. Wikis that don't want this can decide to have it disabled. [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2015-December/001305.html][https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T103102] |
|||
* The difference between "alerts" and "messages" notifications is unclear to some. The developers want feedback at [[phab:T123018|the Phabricator task]] or [[mw:Topic:Sw196pvf5vwt6pku|on MediaWiki.org]] so they can make this better. You can give feedback in your language if you can't write in English. |
|||
'''''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News|Tech news]]''' prepared by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/Ambassadors|tech ambassadors]] and posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|bot]] • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News#contribute|Contribute]] • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2016/02|Translate]] • [[m:Tech|Get help]] • [[m:Talk:Tech/News|Give feedback]] • [[m:Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors|Subscribe or unsubscribe]].'' |
|||
</div></div> <section end="technews-2016-W02"/> 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=15213553 --> |
|||
==Talkback== |
|||
{{talkback|Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerk_training/December_2015|Agenda|ts=22:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
'''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 22:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:14, 14 January 2016
Wikipedia:Babel | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Search user languages |
User:DeltaQuad/Menu
User:DeltaQuad/StatusTemplate
User:DeltaQuad/Templates/Off and On WikiBreak
Contact information
|
---|
|
A question about WP:ARCA
I hope you can answer this question, I cant seem to find the answer. Looking at the PD in e-cig it is looking like it may be necessary for me to file at WP:ARCA once the case closes in order to bring evidence. I am a little confused looking at the WP:ARCA page as to its purpose. Specifically is it to request to be allowed to present evidence and in effect reopen the case once it is closed, or is it to present the evidence itself there? AlbinoFerret 21:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- @AlbinoFerret: You can specify your evidence at that location. It will not re-open the case, merely request a review. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- The 1000 word limit is a problem, I have extensive evidence, 6000 words and 228 diffs and the NPOV portion alone is about 75 diffs and needs the that many to show a persistent pattern. Can I please have a place to show the entire evidence or at least a good chunk of it? I started a section yesterday night [1] but it is only a small fraction of what I have and may not be the best examples because of the limit. AlbinoFerret 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm willing to grant an extension of some sort, but could you user space the material, and I'll see what I can do to look into the limit? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not a problem, it was simple copy and paste. Here is a link User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/evidence. 23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret, so a few recommendations to help the numbers:
- If a diff says something, don't quote it, just link it.
- Show us 3-4 examples of what your trying to present. We can get the point without an essay being written. If you feel you really need to make your point, double that at the MOST. Choose your strongest points. Particularly, the "NPOV/Negative Advocacy" section is what I refer to.
- Don't represent evidence, especially after it was in the final decision. Maybe note the FoF at best. "Gaming the system" is what i'm referring to here.
- If possible present what you would like done. Always makes a clarification/amendment of the case request (Arbitration Requests for Clarification and Amendment) easier.
- -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Understood, The only reason I quoted what an edit was to show it didnt match the source, but I will trim it down. The only reason so much is there, is because it was found. The only thing I think needs more than 3 or 4 is the NPOV, but the limit also effects bringing in other stuff. I will not add gaming the system. I thought it was clear what I want done, but I will clarify that right now. If I can have more words, please let me know the new limit. AlbinoFerret 13:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have made some changes, I am having trouble lowering the NPOV section, all of it looks extremely bad to me. But I did change a few to stronger ones. I need to take a break from WP to take my wife to the doctor, I will come back to it later today. AlbinoFerret 14:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ok DQ, I think I have whittled enough, and found the worst actions, The NOPV stuff is all bad and may take more than a few instances to prove because its a long term problem, its like death from a thousand cuts. But right now I am under 1000 words including the diffs. AlbinoFerret 18:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret, so a few recommendations to help the numbers:
- Not a problem, it was simple copy and paste. Here is a link User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/evidence. 23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm willing to grant an extension of some sort, but could you user space the material, and I'll see what I can do to look into the limit? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- The 1000 word limit is a problem, I have extensive evidence, 6000 words and 228 diffs and the NPOV portion alone is about 75 diffs and needs the that many to show a persistent pattern. Can I please have a place to show the entire evidence or at least a good chunk of it? I started a section yesterday night [1] but it is only a small fraction of what I have and may not be the best examples because of the limit. AlbinoFerret 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder if you might be making unnecessarily heavy weather of this, AlbinoFerret? If your objective is a topic ban for QuackGuru, just pop along to WP:AE with a link to the Arbcom decision and diffs of the things he's done since the case closed. 42 edits to Electronic cigarette in three days not counting 15 edits to the talk page, including several pre-emptive changes while talk page discussions are ongoing; issuing inappropriate "warnings" to other editors (by which I mean, me)----there's a clear pattern of controlling behaviour there which shows he's disregarded the Committee's words completely. Even though I predicted exactly this ("A glance at QG's block log ought to tell you he does not listen to admonishments or warnings"), I'm nevertheless amazed by how blatant about it he's being. I personally think it's open-and-shut.
Also, Arbitration Enforcement will be a vastly quicker route than getting a decision out of the current committee.—S Marshall T/C 15:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- While there are examples recently added from after the arbcom case, I will not be using them at ARCA due to space limitations. As I understand it, nothing would stop anyone from going to AE now or at some point in the near future with that evidence and what you have gathered S Marshall. One thing AE might not be able to deal with is Cloudjpk, who is an SPA that appears from the evidence presented to be a meatpuppet. If I am wrong about that, please let me know. AlbinoFerret 17:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I probably should have posted at the end instead of the middle thread. I think that I have followed your suggestions, though I did add a few more to the NPOV. While I would like to add more to prove the long term NPOV problem, if you dont think its necessary I can live with whats there DQ. I would like some more words to respond to any comments if possible because I am at near the limit now. AlbinoFerret 13:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- No need for the extension, QuackGuru was topic banned for 6 months, I have partially withdrawn the ARCA request as pertains to him. There is more than enough room for the other editor. AlbinoFerret 14:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I figured that was going to happen and was needed as per my comments in the arb case. I apologize for not reviewing it sooner...the dirty snow has been quite heavy here. That being the crap life puts on us, not actual snow as it doesn't seem to be staying like it should this time of year -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The next year and ArbCom
Since my first year is coming to a close with the Arbitration Committee, I would like to take the time with the community to go over how I as an individual Arbitrator can improve to serve the community better. I obviously won't agree with every view point here, but I would like to at least view and/or respond to the comments made by willing parties. This is just for me only, and is not a review of the committee's actions as a whole, but my individual contribution to the Committee. If you would like to see me be proactive in specific matters, please do list them briefly below. I look forward to reading the comments. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nice to see an arb doing this. I think others have done similar things in the past (I had a userspace page for people to make complaints at, but that didn't work that well). Have you considered keeping a log of your workflow over the year, so it is clearer how that could be managed? It would also be something that would help when having a review or discussion like this. It might not feel like it, but people don't really follow in great detail what each individual arb does. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it may not be obvious sometimes who is following what each arb does from time to time. :-) It was a particular comment that I noticed which led me here (and it's not even the userspace comment); DQ's gut instinct may be far more valuable than others realise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Carcharoth and Ncmvocalist: User:DeltaQuad/ArbCom Activity for your viewing pleasure :) Standard really fast talking and super small text disclaimer on accuracy is not guaranteed, etc., etc. And thanks Ncmvocalist, it's rare that I do use my gut in ArbCom decisions...but in this case I felt it warranted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it may not be obvious sometimes who is following what each arb does from time to time. :-) It was a particular comment that I noticed which led me here (and it's not even the userspace comment); DQ's gut instinct may be far more valuable than others realise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi DeltaQuad. I think you've been a very good and fair arbitrator. And I miss your excellent work at WP:ANRFC after you've become an arbitrator. :)
My one concern was that you took over the drafting of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Proposed decision on 29 September 2015, saying that you planned to have it done by 3 October 2015. However, you did not post the proposed decision until 28 October 2015. Neither the Arbitration Committee nor you posted an update about the case's status on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Proposed decision, and you didn't respond to a clerk's question your talk page.
S Marshall was frustrated about the lack of action. He started a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 196#Arbcom and retired after nothing happened. (He returned after the decision was posted.)
I think more communication was needed in this case so that the community would have had an expectation of when they would see the proposed decision. It would have prevented editors from wondering whether the Arbitration Committee had forgotten about the case. Unforeseen delays because of real-life issues can happen and are okay, but the lack of communication is not good.
Other than this issue, I think you've done a very good job on the Arbitration Committee, and like Roger Davies and Doug Weller below, I respect and admire your courage in disclosing very personal information to the community.
Cunard (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Cunard: Your absolutely right on that. I really should have been more talkative during that time about how things were going. The sad part is I only picked it up cause I thought no one else would. Whether that was a good assumption or not...i'll leave to the readers discretion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Merged thread for convince. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a brief note to say how much I respect your integrity and courage in disclosing intensely personal material to the community. I have nothing but admiration for you as none of this can have been easy. I don't always agree with what you say but I do have the highest respect for you as an arbitrator. Thank you for your service. May it long continue, Roger Davies talk 08:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Second this. That was my response when I saw the change on my watchlist. Doug Weller (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Had it been any earlier this year, I probably wouldn't have done such a thing. But now that I feel I have a track record established that things do not interfere with my ability to BE an arbitrator, it's easier to disclose I must admit. To those who are reading this, I do want to say thank you, I haven't received a single bit of harassment or discrimination onwiki for this. It's a lot different from out from behind a computer screen.
- For those who are wondering a bit about my motives as for doing this, a question came up in the ArbCom election questions to the candidates that requested the disclosure of such information. I felt it was unfair to ask 2/3s (that's how much of arbcom we are replacing...scary) of ArbCom the question, but not ask the rest of us. I'm also a little tired of this game that ArbCom is too secretive behind closed doors. Yes, we could put more out in public. Would we be just as effective? About 80% of the time the answer is no. This is a case where I can still be effective with disclosure, so in the interest of openness, my userpage gained some more text. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad: Well I'm personally delighted that you've made the disclosure, especially when you're in such a high profile role. I have long been appalled by the way trans people have sometimes been treated on Wikipedia and it's an indicator of the project's increasing maturity that your experience has been positive. For what it's worth, I think you're a great role model and I expect your openness and courage will encourage others to do the same. Roger Davies talk 07:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Would you explain this
Why it was done. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=Marlinsfan1988
Thanks Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Other than the user was evading a previous block in place, I can't really say much more than that as the information includes quite sensitive data. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- It was just that he/she seems to have been editing in a mundane sort of way for some time before this block happened, with seemingly nothing to suggest any evasion (such as making the sort of controversial edits that would justify making an evasion). There is also this [[2]] and this [[3]] and this [[4]] which I wonder might be connected to this block. Nomoskedasticity has been implying they are connected. If so, it seems a bit suspicious to block for unstated reasons when the individual is involved in an ongoing AfD discussion and has not been mentioned in those sockpuppet investigations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I can tell you with certainty that it is not that sockmaster. And I can understand your concern about the AfD votes, but this person isn't allowed to contribute to the encyclopedia at this time. I hope that answers your concerns. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's OK. If there is not a connection then it isn't an issue, and I accept that a blocked editor has no right to be voting in an AfD under another name. Though I don't know why it should be a secret who the blocked editor is. By "implying" I meant that Nomoskedasticity had mentioned the block on the AfD, which, given the ongoing issue of edits by representatives of OMICS, and by socks, and whether they should all be blocked, inevitably carried with it the implication that Marlinsfan1988 was such an editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I can tell you with certainty that it is not that sockmaster. And I can understand your concern about the AfD votes, but this person isn't allowed to contribute to the encyclopedia at this time. I hope that answers your concerns. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- It was just that he/she seems to have been editing in a mundane sort of way for some time before this block happened, with seemingly nothing to suggest any evasion (such as making the sort of controversial edits that would justify making an evasion). There is also this [[2]] and this [[3]] and this [[4]] which I wonder might be connected to this block. Nomoskedasticity has been implying they are connected. If so, it seems a bit suspicious to block for unstated reasons when the individual is involved in an ongoing AfD discussion and has not been mentioned in those sockpuppet investigations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
In this case (the edit to Jimbo's talk page), I agree that Rev-Del works just as well as oversighting. Thanks for being so quick. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 10:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your thoughtful and humble comments on the arbitration committee. It is encouraging to see somebody who is willing to consider that maybe they don't know everything, and to listen to outside voices. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: (pretty sure this is re. AE2 talkpage comments) If I knew everything, I wouldn't be sitting on ArbCom. I'd be telling them what to do from the sidelines and watch them succeed or fail. But thank you for stopping by. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Minor CE ?
Re: this. Aspirations = aspersions? I echo the sentiments expressed by others in recent hours above, btw. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, as usual my spelling is worth less than a coffee. Thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
saw this
[5] ... nope. Wikipedia should not be here to "teach behavior". I will support you to be a member of Arbcom because you are very good at that ... but I disagree with this. — Ched : ? 03:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- put a hold on the post above. Let me read it again. Maybe I am wrong in my conclusions. — Ched : ? 04:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Tech News: 2015-49
16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 13:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I pinged you, you're probably busy but I thought I'll just ask again. Hope you don't mind. QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
AE2 case and changing your mind
Hi Amanda, I have been watching the development of this case, and I particularly note your recent addition to the proposed decision. Without commenting on the specific proposals, let me say how heartened I have ben to see an Arb responding to community concerns and reconsidering in a public way. I have watched ArbCom for a long time and have often wished for a greater willingness for Arbitrators to engage with criticism and to re-evaluate positions. You have offered an excellent example of how an arbitrator can be responsive, and I thank you for that. Reflection and reconsideration are public demonstrations of thoughtfulness and not weakness, and I hope others will follow this example in appropriate cases. EdChem (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Tech News: 2015-50
17:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
GMO
Thank you for taking the time to review the evidence. I believe Albino Ferret and David Ternheim also provided evidence so please look at their sections as well. I don't customarily edit where Kingofaces edits so a two-way iBan is unwarranted. I've done nothing to KoA that would deserve such an action, but the fact that you suggested a 2-way tells me his aspersions worked, and that's sad. Also, please keep in mind that I asked to be removed as a party to the GMO case because I don't edit GMO articles, but my request was denied. The aspersions against me by KoA were made at the Workshop, and again on the PD TP. The obvious question is why would I consider opening a case at AN/I after ArbCom refused to correct it? That's a backward process. Forgive me for not having too much faith in the AN/I process after I was POV_railroaded at that noticeboard without one diff to support any of the allegations. The case was initially closed with a trout slap to all, but it was soon overturned by an unwarranted block against me by another admin. I probably should have filed a case against that blocking admin but the AN/I had a chilling effect on me so I decided against it. Anyway, thanks for the offer to mediate but there's really nothing more I can do or say except that I want him to stop the aspersions, and stop poisoning the well. Atsme📞📧 11:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- PS - the diffs KoA provided to support his aspersions against me were more aspersions against me. One pointed to his own post while another was a false accusation of me being a SPA that was dated a few years ago, and was not even close to being true. What his diffs say to me is that if an editor wanted to rid themselves of opposition, all they have to do is make false allegations, cast aspersions to discredit that editor, add a bunch of diffs that don't support the claims knowing it's highly unlikely they'll be read, and then file a case against that editor at AN/I using those diffs while casting more aspersions. I've seen it happen before, and that's why I wanted to nip this in the bud in hopes of setting a precedent while restoring my integrity. Why has it been so difficult for me to get that done? Atsme📞📧 11:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Iaaasi
Hello! I'd like to inform you, according to IP location finder tool, banned user and notorious sockpuppeter Iaaasi still presents here, in the English Wikipedia. His sockpuppets, among others 79.112.44.71, 79.116.93.136, 86.123.40.170, 79.116.93.90, but I also suspect Hahun (same style, same articles, and usually check&follow my edits). --Norden1990 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Everything has been taken care of. Mike V • Talk 04:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Possilikely
Template:Possilikely has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TL22 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Glyphosate
Thanks for the page protection at glyphosate. I'm not going to grumble about The Wrong Version, but I do have something I want to grumble about for a second and see if you have any ideas.
This recent outbreak was a good example where someone added content that had been attempted to be added a few months ago and I basically said in my revert, "Hey, we talked about this edit already and didn't have consensus on if or how to add this same thing in, so come to the talk page instead of reverting if you feel strongly about seeing it added."[22] Such a request seems to be ignored more often than not. One of my main concerns[23] during the case was that we needed something to drive the point home that that people need to work on consensus building after a new change has first been reverted instead of re-reverting. It feels I've been doing nothing but whacking the concept over people's heads until the cows come home with little luck.
So besides individual 0RR restrictions and blocks as options, is it also possible to craft a discretionary sanction that applies to the article(s) that basically says once new content or a new change to established content is reverted, editors need to go to the talk page instead of revert? Does that get too complicated? I'm not asking for such a sanction now (we'll see how things go), but I'm just trying to think of ways in the future us proverbial cats could maybe be herded towards what we ideally should be doing before other options become a serious thought. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I may not edit in this area, but some of the pages are on my watchlist because of the case. When I noticed what was happening I did request protection. DQ got there first which is a good thing. This is the exact thing I thought would happen and proposed a remedy in the workshop to address. I dont think 0RR is the answer, unless you want to impose it on everyone, but a remedy to ban those that jump into and add to the reverting past a certain number. AlbinoFerret 16:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingofaces43: Thanks for stopping by and I appologize for my delay in a response. It may seem too complicated for some, but it's definitely something I'm willing to consider in the future as long as we blanket everyone in it. I'd still obviously like to round a few more page protections to see if I can drive the point home that way if this time didn't work though. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Tech News: 2015-51
17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Not ignoring you.
Not ignoring you. I reverted this post of this morning cuz Berean Hunter told me to chill for the day and I want things to chill for a bit longer.--Elvey(t•c) 16:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey DQ, how do you update this template? Is it done with a script? Can you please share? Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Tiggerjay The last line on that page states it is updated by DQB Mlpearc (open channel) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick question: Was a rangeblock possible, or do I need to watchlist their most frequently hit pages? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep it on the watchlist for now...it's hard to determine right now what would be the most effective block, so as far as I remember, I did not make any blocks regarding the IPs involved. It will get easier down the road if they continue, but for now, it's a hit and miss game. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Your bot at UAA
Hey, so I'm not sure if it's supposed to be doing it, but your bot sometimes removes users who aren't blocked: [28]. In that instance none of them were blocked. If I'm seeing it right what it's doing is removing non-vios and moving monitors to the holding pen, which I assume is by design. If that's the case do you think you could have it leave an edit summary stating something like "Removing X blocked users, Y non-violations, and moving Z reports to holding pen. W reports remaining." instead of the generic "Removing blocked users and moving waiting requests"? I feel like it would be more helpful that way so that we know how it handled the reports. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ks0stm: Line 330 would seem to agree that it does do this. It just means this line needs a quick edit. I'll see about getting around to it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
40-char usernames?
I see the DQB bot flags up usernames that are longer than 40 characters at WP:UAA. I've seen this happen a few times now, but what I can't find is any policy that actually imposes such a limit. All I can find at Wikipedia:Username policy is "Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action" (emphasis in original). If I'm missing something elsewhere, would you be kind enough to show me where it is? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: Over time I have taken no opinion and wish to remain neutral on what is on the blacklist and what isn't. I did not design the list, I only took over the last bots operation of it. Therefore BRD or WT:UAA are your best options on this. If you need help editing, I or The Anome are well versed in the coding aspect of it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I just keep seeing new users warned and even blocked for what look to me to be non-violations (presumably due to admins seeing them reported at UAA and assuming there really is a violation). I'll probably seek technical advice from one of you when I have a bit of time, but in the meantime I hope you're having a great <insert celebration of choice here> :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- If admins are warning/blocking users for non-violations just because the users were reported to UAA for human review, then these admins need to be talked to. I'd rather see DQB continue reporting these gray cases for a human admin to make a final determination, but the admins in questions need to be a certain basic expectation of judgement in reviewing the automated reports. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Salvidrim!. I would just be sure the messages left by DQB on user talk pages (I haven't looked for any examples) are general, as in action/outcome and welcoming. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- AFAIAW, DQB only reports to UAA with a note that "reported usernames aren't automatically violations and should be reviewed". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim!: No it doesn't, there's one there now that says in its entirety...
- "Matched: 40chars -- DQB (owner / report) 02:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Clerk note: Username exceeds 40 characters. -- DQB (owner / report) 02:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)"
- I've actually been hit with this myself with a clean start account (which I've since abandoned), and I recently unblocked someone after communication with the blocking admin and pointing out that there's no policy violation - the user was annoyed and we came close to losing them. I don't know if UAA was the source in both cases, but since those two recent occurrences I've been wondering where the erroneous "usernames mustn't be longer than 40 chars" meme was coming from - and it seems very likely it's these UAA reports. In both cases they were very experienced admins, so it's no good just sitting back and saying "admins shouldn't do this" when in fact they do - and I don't think there's a realistic way of educating all admins who might choose to help out at UAA when it needs it. If the bot did actually add a comment that > 40 chars isn't actually a policy violation, I think that would be fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to expand the Clerk note to something like "Username exceeds 40 characters. Not a policy violation in itself, so review carefully." How would that sound? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim!: No it doesn't, there's one there now that says in its entirety...
- AFAIAW, DQB only reports to UAA with a note that "reported usernames aren't automatically violations and should be reviewed". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Salvidrim!. I would just be sure the messages left by DQB on user talk pages (I haven't looked for any examples) are general, as in action/outcome and welcoming. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- If admins are warning/blocking users for non-violations just because the users were reported to UAA for human review, then these admins need to be talked to. I'd rather see DQB continue reporting these gray cases for a human admin to make a final determination, but the admins in questions need to be a certain basic expectation of judgement in reviewing the automated reports. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I just keep seeing new users warned and even blocked for what look to me to be non-violations (presumably due to admins seeing them reported at UAA and assuming there really is a violation). I'll probably seek technical advice from one of you when I have a bit of time, but in the meantime I hope you're having a great <insert celebration of choice here> :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Tech News: 2015-52
18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
you asked
A short time ago, you posted somewhere asking what we (the community) thought. My reply is generally positive. I think you had the unfortunate luck to be caught on one of the worst committees in Wiki history - but I also think that you've comported yourself with exceptional grace. I think you've been fair, honest, brave, and acted with the utmost integrity. I'll work up an email to elaborate, but wanted you (and others) to be aware of my position.
While I'm here - I hope you have a very enjoyable holiday season Amanda. Best. — Ched : ? 01:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and happy new year
mail ping
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Request of Removal Last Sanction
I'm looking to remove the last sanction (number one) from here. eurodyne (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Gurumayum Arvind
Hi DeltaQuad. You recently blocked a number of socks of Gurumayum Arvind. I think they might be at it again as Special:Contributions/45.127.136.69. The articles edited are the same and the same edits are being made. Seems like WP:DUCK to me, so I 'd appreciate it if you take a look. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again DeltaQuad. Just want to let you know that 45.127.136.69 was blocked by Drmies and another sock 45.127.138.6 was blocked by CactusWriter. There, however, appears to be a new possible "duck" Special:Contributions/45.127.138.24 who is bascially editing the same articles and making the same types of edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote them up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurumayum Arvind. Marchjuly, thanks for the alert. Keep 'em coming. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Tech News: 2016-02
16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 22:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Vanjagenije (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)