Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Drmies/Archive 117) (bot |
Petrarchan47 (talk | contribs) →Arbitration CA notice: new section |
||
Line 348: | Line 348: | ||
Hello, I've noticed that you've taken a bit of interest in the edits to delete a "see also" section link to the [[Committee to Protect Journalists]] from the article on [[Greg Gianforte|US Representative Greg Gianforte]]. Would you care to weigh in on this issue over at.... [[Talk:Greg_Gianforte#Wholesale_deletion_of_"See_also"_section]]. Thank you for your consideration, [[User:Critical Chris|Critical Chris]] |
Hello, I've noticed that you've taken a bit of interest in the edits to delete a "see also" section link to the [[Committee to Protect Journalists]] from the article on [[Greg Gianforte|US Representative Greg Gianforte]]. Would you care to weigh in on this issue over at.... [[Talk:Greg_Gianforte#Wholesale_deletion_of_"See_also"_section]]. Thank you for your consideration, [[User:Critical Chris|Critical Chris]] |
||
== Arbitration CA notice == |
|||
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">คุ</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">ก</font>]]</span>''' 07:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Arbitration CA notice |
Revision as of 07:26, 18 November 2018
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Note to self
Category:Articles with a promotional tone from December 2017
Bought the farm
I recently came across an editor called Bought the farm; noticing that they seemed to be advocating for some rather outside-the-mainstream viewpoints related to the whole mail bomber thing, I thought I'd speak to them on their talk page. However, once there, I noticed that you had imposed discretionary sanctions for them for all US post-1932 political topics; I felt that, given the bomber's apparent motivations, this certainly applied, and thus thought I would let you know. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and they have a special focus on defending and pushing conspiracy theories. They need a topic ban on that topic, as their influence is clearly for WP:Advocacy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- I blocked this editor for a week. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- We need another Trump-focused editor like we need a hole in the head. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Softlavender, now you are being quoted by one of the most extreme Trump supporters. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Dang it BullRangifer Wikipedia is not a battleground. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- How true. Here's the issue. We don't allow advocacy of fringe POV. If an editor's comments and editing are backed by RS, then there's no problem, but this BS isn't good, and defending it isn't good either. You need to think twice about whom and what behaviors you're defending, because defending this type of stuff is using Wikipedia as a battleground for fringe advocacy. Defending RS and the integrity of Wikipedia is not battleground behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am going to leave it here out of respect for Drmies but you really should review WP:BATTLEGROUND. Calling other editors extremists is not exactly civil and could be seen as a personal attack. PackMecEng (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, Softlavender, "Trump-focused" is one thing--and it's not the same as "Trump-obsessed", for instance. We need Trump-focused editors, just like we need speleology-focused and math-focused editors. BullR, I wish you hadn't brought Winkelvi into this matter, since I really don't want to make this a two-way street. Winkelvi is either focused on you (and your fellow travelers) or on me, and I find both options to be distasteful, but I don't need to be reminded of it. And yes, please don't go around calling other editors extremists, certainly not on my talk page (which is, as you know, a happy place)--thanks. Moreover, I've blocked many an editor for POV editing, and whatever you want to say about Winkelvi, they're not that bad. AGF please. PackMecEng, thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't bring Winkelvi into this conversation; his talkpage quoting me was linked by Bullrangifer, so I'm guessing your comment was addressed to him. Yes, obsessed is a better word. Softlavender (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, Softlavender, "Trump-focused" is one thing--and it's not the same as "Trump-obsessed", for instance. We need Trump-focused editors, just like we need speleology-focused and math-focused editors. BullR, I wish you hadn't brought Winkelvi into this matter, since I really don't want to make this a two-way street. Winkelvi is either focused on you (and your fellow travelers) or on me, and I find both options to be distasteful, but I don't need to be reminded of it. And yes, please don't go around calling other editors extremists, certainly not on my talk page (which is, as you know, a happy place)--thanks. Moreover, I've blocked many an editor for POV editing, and whatever you want to say about Winkelvi, they're not that bad. AGF please. PackMecEng, thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am going to leave it here out of respect for Drmies but you really should review WP:BATTLEGROUND. Calling other editors extremists is not exactly civil and could be seen as a personal attack. PackMecEng (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- How true. Here's the issue. We don't allow advocacy of fringe POV. If an editor's comments and editing are backed by RS, then there's no problem, but this BS isn't good, and defending it isn't good either. You need to think twice about whom and what behaviors you're defending, because defending this type of stuff is using Wikipedia as a battleground for fringe advocacy. Defending RS and the integrity of Wikipedia is not battleground behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Dang it BullRangifer Wikipedia is not a battleground. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Softlavender, now you are being quoted by one of the most extreme Trump supporters. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- We need another Trump-focused editor like we need a hole in the head. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- I blocked this editor for a week. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Now evading block as IP . BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of blocking the IP for 72 hours.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please see my note at User talk:Bought the farm, Cullen328. I think Drmies narrowed the ban to only apply to BLPs in American politics. Drmies? Bishonen | talk 09:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC).
While I hate to change the topic (who am I kidding, I love changing topics), this is a reminder to Drmies that ArbCom elections are upcoming and not to forget to nominate themselves if they intend to run again. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Is Drmies a "they" now? Is that a distancing, overly formal "they", a rhetorical, talking-about-user-in-the-third-person-while-on-their-usertalk "they", an I-have-no-idea-what-this-user's-gender-is "they", a politically correct "they", or a let's-assuage-Drmies'-gender-sensibilities "they"? Softlavender (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ha, like I'd stand a chance! YOU should run, K-stick. Everybody loves you, you are a hard worker, you're smart. Run plz. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- You're kidding right, I have barely been around all year. Will see what the next two years bring, but for sure not this year. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Might I chime in, Drmies, and say "please run"? You'd be a huge asset on the committee, and you would certainly do better in an election than any of the current candidates, in my estimation (and better than a couple I know are considering running). Vanamonde (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK Doc, you got your wish, it's not like I have anything better to do. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Come on, don't you miss us?? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Might I chime in, Drmies, and say "please run"? You'd be a huge asset on the committee, and you would certainly do better in an election than any of the current candidates, in my estimation (and better than a couple I know are considering running). Vanamonde (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- You're kidding right, I have barely been around all year. Will see what the next two years bring, but for sure not this year. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- OT: Why do "bought the farm" and "sold the farm" mean the same thing? Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Bought the farm" is to kick the bucket, "sell the farm" is to sell all your buckets in order to invest in something risky, and "sold the farm" is when Bernie Madoff's Nigerian Bitcoin venture, what you invested in, goes tits-up and you want to kick the bucket but you ain't got one to kick. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- I can always count on you to clarify things, Xanthy. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Racial views of Donald Trump article
Would you please take a look at the Mein Kamph addition to the Racial views of Donald Trump article. It was first added to the lead, I removed it and placed a note on the talk page. It has been reinserted into the body of the article. I don't feel it to be appropriate and actually am surprised that no editor has backed me up on that. I especially hate to see it in the article because it has been mentioned on Jimbo's talk page and perhaps will draw more viewings. See what you think, I guess I could be wrong. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Gandydancer, you mean this? Yeah, that's totally unacceptable, and I'm glad to see Objective3000 did the right thing--thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ya know, I really have to wonder if the Trump editors/watchers might be getting snowed under due to the incredible amount of noteworthy news this man is creating. Things that would likely end another politician's career and be well-covered here are hardly covered by the press for more than a day because the next outrageous event takes place. And of course here, due to sheer numbers, we skip them completely. I continue to watch over Melania, zero tolerance, and environmental articles, and racial Trump as well, but I assumed there to be others from the original group that mostly wrote it - but it seems that they must have fallen away with so much else on their to-do list. I'll begin to watch it with the idea that I need to step in right away and get backup from you or others as needed - since it seems you have a well-watched talk page of ultra-smart people. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Gee, you sound surprised I did the right thing. Kinda like when I get my physical and my doctor says “you’re healthy”, with an accent on the second syllable and curved eyebrows. I was right once before. I told Caesar to read the damn scroll and stay out of the Senate. No one listens. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just wait until you get your physical and any good news ends with "...for your age." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Shatta Wale
Hey Drmies, if you get some free time soon, would you be able to take a look at Shatta Wale and expunge some of the most obvious puff piece material? I've tried but looks like there's one editor in particular named Wells.grace who is a big fan of the artist and continues to hype them up every time they edit, and who has removed maintenance templates twice now from the article. The lead is way too long, the article contains a lot of poorly written prose and it's just not an encyclopedic tone. Thanks if you can help. Ss112 19:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- no free time, Ss112, but I did trim 25% off the article. Now I want to hear some reggae. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK never mind. I'd rather hear, eh, 2Live Crew, and I can't stand them. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Psalm 133
On 5 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Psalm 133, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the complete Psalm 131 and the first verse of Psalm 133 in Hebrew comprise the text of the last movement of Chichester Psalms by Leonard Bernstein? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 133. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Psalm 133), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Apparent sock engaging in edit warring, disruption, original research, probable COI
Hey Drmies, I thought an admin ought to have eyes on this: while doing some pending changes reviews a few moments back, I reverted an edit by a user (their first made after registering) at Balloon boy hoax. The article has apparently been page protected because of persistent efforts to shape the narrative of the article such as to provide a more sympathetic view to the subjects of that article; looking at the edit history, it seems this is just the latest in a number of SPAs (which I would suspect are COI editors as well) making similar edits recently, a sockmaster apparently jumping from one new account to another, making a single edit which gets promptly reverted, and then trying the same trick a few weeks or a month later. In this case I reverted (without yet being aware of the history described above) because the "sources" in question were youtube videos that did not pass RS muster, and it was clear that this was likely to be a controversial change. I then immediately received a hostile PA on my talk page from the editor in question: [1], followed by another bizarre edit which I can only assume was an oblivious effort to hide their tracks [2]. This looks like blatant socking, likely by a COI editor--but in any event, involving disruption and CIR issues. Not sure if it will go anywhere, given how little sticking power the efforts under previous accounts have had, but I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention all the same. Snow let's rap 06:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ooops, sorry to trouble you, Longhair has already observed the matter. Thanks for the quick response, Longhair. Snow let's rap 06:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's been years since I looked at it--what a mess. Glad the problem is taken care of. Thanks to Longhair as well. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The second hot air balloon related thread on your talk page in recent days! Perhaps it is the way forward! See Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304/Airlander 10 although, with almost all of its flights ending in crashes -- none mentioned in the lede -- perhaps it isn't the way forward! MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's been years since I looked at it--what a mess. Glad the problem is taken care of. Thanks to Longhair as well. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, after looking into the matter some, I discovered that there's a sockmaster who has been consistently pushing a conspiracy theory that the balloon boy's father was actually the victim of prosecutorial fraud/police harassment/a media cover up/mass delusion in the general populace. I usually don't leap to the assumption of COI even with persistent disruption from socks, but some of the idiosyncracies in how these socks describe the man and his "plight" make it hard to escape the suspicion. In any event, I gave up adding up all of the socks (which are mostly used for one to four edits and then dropped like a hot potato) after finding more than a dozen (there's also a vast number of IPs being used for one or two edits each, with generally identical edits and talk arguments to those being pushed by the registered socks). I only had to go back a couple of years in the article and talk history to find that many, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's been going on for much longer, given how consistent the pattern is. Just to be pro active/pro forma about things, I opened an SPI; honestly I don't know how much practical good it will do, since the sockmaster is clearly quite happy to keep jumping from IP to IP, generating a ceaseless stream of accounts, but at least blocking the known accounts will make the level of disruption/POV pushing obvious on the talk page and edit history, especially for those users with the "blocked accounts stricken out" gadget active. It could also help if the editors maintaining the article need to request extension of the page protection, which I suspect they may have to do indefinitely, given the persistence of this individual. Snow let's rap 03:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that SPI will do very much, for reasons you indicated. And I'm not convinced all those accounts would be from just one editor--there's plenty of internet-generated crusaders out there. The article is protected until next year, so that's something. I suggest something else--archive the talk page, and apply NOTFORUM rigorously, by reverting whatever smells of a forum post, and closing things close to forumposting down quickly. I can help do those things. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, after looking into the matter some, I discovered that there's a sockmaster who has been consistently pushing a conspiracy theory that the balloon boy's father was actually the victim of prosecutorial fraud/police harassment/a media cover up/mass delusion in the general populace. I usually don't leap to the assumption of COI even with persistent disruption from socks, but some of the idiosyncracies in how these socks describe the man and his "plight" make it hard to escape the suspicion. In any event, I gave up adding up all of the socks (which are mostly used for one to four edits and then dropped like a hot potato) after finding more than a dozen (there's also a vast number of IPs being used for one or two edits each, with generally identical edits and talk arguments to those being pushed by the registered socks). I only had to go back a couple of years in the article and talk history to find that many, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's been going on for much longer, given how consistent the pattern is. Just to be pro active/pro forma about things, I opened an SPI; honestly I don't know how much practical good it will do, since the sockmaster is clearly quite happy to keep jumping from IP to IP, generating a ceaseless stream of accounts, but at least blocking the known accounts will make the level of disruption/POV pushing obvious on the talk page and edit history, especially for those users with the "blocked accounts stricken out" gadget active. It could also help if the editors maintaining the article need to request extension of the page protection, which I suspect they may have to do indefinitely, given the persistence of this individual. Snow let's rap 03:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a different article now. Check out the reviews here. Do you feel it has improved enough for you to withdraw your nomination? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Philafrenzy; that's a nice list and it suggests notability for the book. The person, that's another matter (and I see you added the subject's journal articles, which is a feature of resume-style articles), and I think this should be brought up at the AfD, where User:Piotrus has already commented. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- All academic bios should include the subject's publications including journal articles or a sample if they are numerous. It's a standard feature of such articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- No they shouldn't, and no it's not. That's what academia.edu is for. And tenure applications. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- All bios certainly should include the subjects books and articles (selected if numerous). You won't find many that don't. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No they shouldn't, and no it's not. That's what academia.edu is for. And tenure applications. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- All academic bios should include the subject's publications including journal articles or a sample if they are numerous. It's a standard feature of such articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy is now edit-warring to include mention of an unpublished book, cited only to the publisher's promotional blurb. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- As the author of "Sociological implications of 19th-century [a certain industrial application of paint technology]", I recognise the use of sociological jargon to investigate a niche that nobody else is writing about. In my day it was Dutch sociologists hanging around in public lavatories, and ethnomethodologists logging conversations with the differently gifted in minute detail. Delete it; if he's any good he's going to write something else. "Sociological implications of the demise of the Minidisc" perhaps. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Xanthomelanoussprog, some of my best friends are sociologists. OK, some of my Facebook and Wikipedia acquaintances are sociologists. But I am not above doing a little sociologizing in my own academic work, and I'll send you an offprint when it comes out. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Looking forward to it! Our tutors were at the forefront of the debate between Norbert Elias and Anthony Giddens, so we got to hear about the Dutch scene. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's also the matter of a book cover image in the article, which violates WP:NFCC. Could someone please remove it? Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't violate anything. There is significant critical discussion of the book within the article. Please make high level arguments. Don't try to degrade the article by death from a thousand cuts. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly you are not familiar with WP:RFCC and our policy on book-cover image usage. They are not allowed on author articles, no matter how much "discussion" there is of the book. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please link the specific page. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I assume you refer to WP:NFC#UUI 9 "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." which is not acceptable. However, that refers to using a cover photo in place of a photo of the author. WP:NFCI 1 (cover art) states that cover art "for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" is OK. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- But really you're making another argument that doesn't support your position: if the article provides "critical commentary of that item", it's really an article about the book--which it is. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- It only matters that there is sufficient critical commentary about the book, whether it is in a bio, an article about the book, or some other type of article. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy, I know you think that, but I hope the AfD shows that this is not the consensus of the editors there. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- We are discussing just the fair use justification for the image and nothing more. The AFD is irrelevant to that point. I am saying that to justify the fair use of the cover, there just needs to be critical commentary. That commentary doesn't have to be in a book article, it can also be in a bio or some other sort of article. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, there needs to be critical commentary about the cover, which there is not. Here is a very rare instance of the use of a media cover in an article (an FA) other than the article about the item it is the cover for: The Beatles#Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, because there is critical commentary about the cover. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- We are discussing just the fair use justification for the image and nothing more. The AFD is irrelevant to that point. I am saying that to justify the fair use of the cover, there just needs to be critical commentary. That commentary doesn't have to be in a book article, it can also be in a bio or some other sort of article. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy, I know you think that, but I hope the AfD shows that this is not the consensus of the editors there. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- It only matters that there is sufficient critical commentary about the book, whether it is in a bio, an article about the book, or some other type of article. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- But really you're making another argument that doesn't support your position: if the article provides "critical commentary of that item", it's really an article about the book--which it is. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I assume you refer to WP:NFC#UUI 9 "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." which is not acceptable. However, that refers to using a cover photo in place of a photo of the author. WP:NFCI 1 (cover art) states that cover art "for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" is OK. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please link the specific page. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly you are not familiar with WP:RFCC and our policy on book-cover image usage. They are not allowed on author articles, no matter how much "discussion" there is of the book. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't violate anything. There is significant critical discussion of the book within the article. Please make high level arguments. Don't try to degrade the article by death from a thousand cuts. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, what, there's a discussion related to record collecting and I'm not invited? Now I'm really ticked, so delete Wikipedia. If that argument fails, It would appear the book is notable based on the several academic reviews, but the author is not yet notable. Perhaps the title could be changed to the book, since the article is mostly about the book anyway, and of course the redirect could be left. It is useful information and I'd like to see it WP:PRESERVEd. Just a thought. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, User:78.26--I'm also trying to prepare for class. Yes, a book about records, and apparently it's really cool. I'm mostly completely with you, though Softlavender had an argument against leaving a redirect, but things being as they are that went right over my head. Please weigh in at the AfD so we can (I think) do right by the book (and thus the authors'/editors' work) and by Wikipedia. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
Thanks for all you do here at Wikipedia! Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
Dead
Man I saw that edit vandals really must hate you. I really know how that feels. I don’t think your a horrible administrator. Even if you make mistakes. Vandal are peices of shit. You know I just hope that you don’t get attacked here. A.R.M. 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I get that you know I’m reverting even if users and ClueBot beat me first. I’ll continue fighting my vandals and hope you block more idiots. Cheers A.R.M. 02:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
My Wifi's IP has been blocked
Hi Drmies, my Wifi's IP address - 157.48.111.3 has been blocked by you. I can only use my Wifi for internet inside my home. Please whitelist me on my Wifi's IP address if possible. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but I don't understand. You're editing now. Logged-in editors are not prevented from editing on that range. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. I was logged-in but still was not able to edit. BTW, I was on my mobile data while I was adding this section to your talk page. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not to mention, you shouldn't be editing logged out at all. Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Weeeeeell sometimes one is on one's phone. Like, in bed or at the traffic light. And the app doesn't allow for 2-stage signing in. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Only exceptional people have 2-factor log-in on Wikipedia. (Hoping that gets me some brownie points in case you run for ArbCom again and succeed, and I am brought to the highest court in the land during your reign.) Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why don't you run. I'd vote for you. I really can't right now--I have too many obligations, and I'm way too incidental on Wikipedia these days. Being on ArbCom wasn't the hardest thing in the world, but it requires some concerted effort, and if it hadn't been for people like K-stick and esp. GorillaWarfare, you'd have really noticed that I was just hanging on. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- (A) I'm not an admin, and (B) I really don't need getting an extra 50 or so emails a day that require attention. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why don't you run. I'd vote for you. I really can't right now--I have too many obligations, and I'm way too incidental on Wikipedia these days. Being on ArbCom wasn't the hardest thing in the world, but it requires some concerted effort, and if it hadn't been for people like K-stick and esp. GorillaWarfare, you'd have really noticed that I was just hanging on. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- By the by, I got my very first cell phone six months ago, because people made me do it. And I've discovered that, like the experts say, reading your cell phone immediately before sleep causes insomnia and sleep disturbances (because of the "blue light" of the screen). For instance, last night in bed I was checking Twitter for election return info and such, and then my sleep did not really feel like sleep -- it was like some kind of light anesthesia; I was still aware of my surroundings but I was "under" enough to pass for so-called "sleep". So now I have forsworn reading Twitter and other cell-phone things in bed. I will read my Kindle Paperwhite (which does not emit light in the blue range, but is in the red range instead and does not interfere with sleep). I can't comment on other kinds of Kindles but the people in the know say the Paperwhite is OK and does not cause sleep disturbances. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm Softlavender why would ANYONE be on Twitter? I have my phone in bed so a. I can look things up when I'm reading in bed and b. so I can time my lower back exercises in the morning, haha. Anyway, it goes to some night-time setting at ten, taking out that blue light or whatever it is, and that's much more acceptable. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, interesting! I didn't know there was such a thing as a nighttime setting. I wonder if Android phones have that (mine is a Samsung Galaxy J7)? I barely know how to do anything with my cellphone, but I do check Twitter sometimes when I don't want to log on to my PC. "Why would anyone be on Twitter?" Because at present it is (sadly) the only way to get accurate complete information on what has been happening to our country (not to mention the UK, Russia, etc.) for the past several years, and accurate information on Trump's real history, etc. I joined Twitter in 2012 to get updates for a Wikipedia article, and then the Olympics, and then general fun/socialization, but ever since June 2016 I've been using it as my source for accurate political information, both US/UK and around the world. You have to know who to follow though, to get the good stuff. Softlavender (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe this will tell you. It's a significant difference. One of my uses for Facebook is what you do through Twitter, so that makes sense, I suppose. The only news app I have left on my phone (since all the Dutch paper turned to paid subscription) is NPR, which makes me a true libtard, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, interesting! I didn't know there was such a thing as a nighttime setting. I wonder if Android phones have that (mine is a Samsung Galaxy J7)? I barely know how to do anything with my cellphone, but I do check Twitter sometimes when I don't want to log on to my PC. "Why would anyone be on Twitter?" Because at present it is (sadly) the only way to get accurate complete information on what has been happening to our country (not to mention the UK, Russia, etc.) for the past several years, and accurate information on Trump's real history, etc. I joined Twitter in 2012 to get updates for a Wikipedia article, and then the Olympics, and then general fun/socialization, but ever since June 2016 I've been using it as my source for accurate political information, both US/UK and around the world. You have to know who to follow though, to get the good stuff. Softlavender (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm Softlavender why would ANYONE be on Twitter? I have my phone in bed so a. I can look things up when I'm reading in bed and b. so I can time my lower back exercises in the morning, haha. Anyway, it goes to some night-time setting at ten, taking out that blue light or whatever it is, and that's much more acceptable. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Only exceptional people have 2-factor log-in on Wikipedia. (Hoping that gets me some brownie points in case you run for ArbCom again and succeed, and I am brought to the highest court in the land during your reign.) Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, I was going to suggest that Drmies run for ARBCOM again. Now I need to find someone else to harass^W coerce^W flatter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Weeeeeell sometimes one is on one's phone. Like, in bed or at the traffic light. And the app doesn't allow for 2-stage signing in. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Everytime I see this thread I keep thinking it says "My wife's IP has been blocked". Ooh. ——SerialNumber54129 16:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Drmies, I hate to interrupt everyone's fun, but your /16 block is hard. It's a very wide range to make a hard block, and it doesn't sound like you intended to do that. It was soft-blocked before.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Whoa, I see that now--I thought that showed up directly in the log? I changed it. Thanks Bbb. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Great, now he and his wife can edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb, the more time I spend here the more I am starting to doubt some of our basic tenets. Or, on the other hand, maybe the WMF could grow teeth and protect our project and its editors. I know, crazy thought. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- As a functionary, I'm not political enough to hobnob with people at the foundation. I hear that teething hurts; you should know about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- You know what I mean. Nothing to do with politics. And teething, sure--but ear infections are worse, I think. Floquenbeam might confirm this. Had a student the other day whose two-year old kid has em; I encouraged him to let the kid get the tubes. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- As a functionary, I'm not political enough to hobnob with people at the foundation. I hear that teething hurts; you should know about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb, the more time I spend here the more I am starting to doubt some of our basic tenets. Or, on the other hand, maybe the WMF could grow teeth and protect our project and its editors. I know, crazy thought. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Great, now he and his wife can edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Whoa, I see that now--I thought that showed up directly in the log? I changed it. Thanks Bbb. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Cynthia Lenige
On 8 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cynthia Lenige, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Frisian poet Cynthia Lenige died in 1780 at age 24, her work being published two years after her death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cynthia Lenige. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cynthia Lenige), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Maithripala Sirisena
Would you please take a look at this article on the current President of Sri Lanka? Dubious editing with Maithripala Sirisena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). MaithriWiki added content about Sirisena: He is regarded as the instigator of Sri Lanka's 2018 Constitutional Crisis. Also ButterflyLegion - Added a section on Sirisena's homophobic remarks from November 5 2018 I notice that 4 refs are DailyMirror. @C.Fred: reverted a removal as did I. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I opened an ANI ticket as another such article came up: wp:ANI#Maithripala Sirisena & Angajan Ramanathan Jim1138 (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
What is your authority?
First off, it is clearly you does not explain yourself clearly enough! who are you and what is your authority to challenge me in editing articles? My edits satisfied wikipedia principles and you are not the one to judge whether they are suitable or not. Therefore i will keep it my way until you rule out a clear explanation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertpda (talk • contribs)
- If you continue removing information without explanation, against the will of a number of editors (I'm not the only one), I will be happy to block you. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Block me? How? A band of editors acting as judges? Or do you have a authorized option to block me? You do not have to evade my question like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertpda (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Albertpda, you saw what happened. I can give you some advice, if you like; first thing, probably, is to not start by a. deleting huge loads of content and b. then yelling at those who restore it. Second thing, maybe you should consider that those who've been editing this joint for a while maybe know a thing or two, and the two editors who responded to you on Talk:Vietnam national football team have racked up tens, if not hundreds of thousands of edits here. Also, you were blocked by a very seasoned administrator, and were given a gentle nudge by yet another. Finally, yes, I'm also authorized to block you--that's how it works here. If your question really is about my authority, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Administration (as a reminder to read the rules before you come barging into some place). Drmies (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Remember recordings
... of the Vaughan Wiliams symphonies? The latest user name is Olassus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that was his earlier name too, though not explicitly. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I just blocked a couple of socks. They made the article an attack page. The previous version, if you go back, unfortunately, is not balanced either; it's wholly sanitized. The article needs a fair amount of work to make it neutral. A good source of material, albeit not perfect either, is the section on Penn in the company article, Telstra. I was hoping someone might, uh, enjoy such a project.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb23, that was simpler than one might think: for an article which is a mess and where it is not clear that the subject is notable in his own right, outside the company, a redirect is, IMO, the best answer. So in the end this was not unenjoyable... Drmies (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Blocked IP
Could you remove talk page access for the blocked IP at User talk:2601:2C6:80:C23:7983:18B2:CFA0:3C0 please? Thanks. PamD 20:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Done by Zzuuzz @PamD: Jim1138 talk 23:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Revdel also applied. My apologies, Pam, for the things people say. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the block to cover 2601:2C6:80:C23:0:0:0:0/64 as it's clearly the same user.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
deleting all the children on Radford family page
if you are going to be arrogant and delete all those "insignificant minors" on their page, then you need to delete all the children from the Duggar page, the Bates family page, the Sister Wives page and the Willis Family page. And while you are being an asshole, delete the pages listing most numbers of children by fathers and the pages listing multiple births. Just because you don't care, doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Fidiot.
- The "Grandchildren" section suffers from the same WP:BLPNAME violations, no?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes ma'am. Thank you. Hadn't seen that. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- I bet you spotted my typo though right? It will haunt me through the weekend.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm typo schmypo. Is the functionaries list aware of that slew of proxied botlike edits? Drmies (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Like Rach0581 suggests, deleting the children and their DOB's from 19 Kids and Counting, Bringing Up Bates, Sister Wives and The Willis Family may be a jolly good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I think it's an excellent suggestion, and I support you and Rach moving forward. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Like Rach0581 suggests, deleting the children and their DOB's from 19 Kids and Counting, Bringing Up Bates, Sister Wives and The Willis Family may be a jolly good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm typo schmypo. Is the functionaries list aware of that slew of proxied botlike edits? Drmies (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- I bet you spotted my typo though right? It will haunt me through the weekend.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes ma'am. Thank you. Hadn't seen that. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- The "Grandchildren" section suffers from the same WP:BLPNAME violations, no?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
More r/d on a Friday evening
Please see this IPs 119.82.253.47 (talk · contribs) edits as well as this one 177.137.207.242 (talk · contribs). Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 23:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- OMG. Thank you Ponyo, zzuuzz, Materialscientist. Can I assume that one or more of you have worked your magic re:proxy, range, etc.? I appreciate you all. And thank you Marnette. All of y'all should get extra Christmas checks from Jimbo Wales. Charming, huh, cowards with grudges. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another one has shown up 191.7.44.39 (talk · contribs). My thanks to those that have dealt with this as well. This Christmas Czech will do just fine. :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ugh I just found this attack which has been missed as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm I see your enriched dough and I'll raise you a Kerststol. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the r/d. The K looks delish. I just finished watching episode one of the most recent series of the The Great British Bake Off so my sweet tooth is in overdrive. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Our favorite show. One day I'm making the princess cake. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yum Yum. Now that they are on Netflix I have to restrain myself from watching all 10 eps at one go. I just found this 188.121.104.80 (talk · contribs). It looks like the troll has shifted from rapid fire attacks to slow returns by shifting IPs to leave their junk on various pages as well as the ref desks. MarnetteD|Talk 02:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- What troll? So it's on Netflix? That's news to me--thanks! Wait--the latest/last/current season too? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- The ref desk troll. Back in August I saw this and this. The last two seasons - the ones that are airing on Channel Four rather than the BBC in the UK - are on Netflix. The reports are a little unclear on whether they will eventually show up on PBS or not. Also the numbering of the seasons can be confusing depending on which channel they are on so look for the ones hosted by Sandi Toksvig and Noel Fielding as listed here. MarnetteD|Talk 02:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- What troll? So it's on Netflix? That's news to me--thanks! Wait--the latest/last/current season too? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yum Yum. Now that they are on Netflix I have to restrain myself from watching all 10 eps at one go. I just found this 188.121.104.80 (talk · contribs). It looks like the troll has shifted from rapid fire attacks to slow returns by shifting IPs to leave their junk on various pages as well as the ref desks. MarnetteD|Talk 02:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Our favorite show. One day I'm making the princess cake. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the r/d. The K looks delish. I just finished watching episode one of the most recent series of the The Great British Bake Off so my sweet tooth is in overdrive. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm I see your enriched dough and I'll raise you a Kerststol. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ugh I just found this attack which has been missed as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another one has shown up 191.7.44.39 (talk · contribs). My thanks to those that have dealt with this as well. This Christmas Czech will do just fine. :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Your Revert of my Edit of "Gab (Social Network)" 10 November
Your edit note said: "I don't see what needed improvement here--this was not improvement." after My edit note said: "Reception: replaced misleading and inaccurate partial excerpts with more of the full text from the source given. Also cite needs to be included, and I don't know how to do that.". (Ignoring the "cite" comment as it's a matter of me learning how to do it.)
My edit note was clear, and yours was ambiguous. I started a Discussion section on the edit immediately after making it. I'm asking you to "revert" your revert, as the edited section was added by a single editor without discussion or consensus, and mischaracterizes what the source actually said.Tym Whittier (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Drmies' edit summary was "I don't see what needed improvement here--this was not improvement". Your edit removed a crucial part of the paragraph, which was the tweet about Somalian immigrants. Rather than continuing to harangue Drmies on his talkpage and insisting that he restore your edit which had removed important information, you need to hash things out on the talkpage of the article and establish what the consensus is. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
User NotHere, etc
Hi, DrMies. I thought I should let some admin know that the user with these contributions seems clearly WP:NOTHERE, having basically done nothing except vandalise our World Rugby Rankings article, and then added and deleted stuff at their sandbox, which appears to be some kind of personal attack on somebody which should perhaps be permanently deleted. And my apologies for taking up your time - if you'd prefer me to report this kind of thing somewhere else in future, please let me know. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Tlhslobus, you don't have to apologize for anything, but warning them, and then reporting to AIV, is better and faster. As it is, the user hasn't even been warned yet, let alone welcomed. Wikipedia:Vandalism actually lays out a process. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, DrMies. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've issued a warning at their Talk Page. I haven't reported it to AIV as that is seemingly not recommended for a beginner's first offence. Do I need to do anything about the deleted stuff in the sandbox, where I'm unclear whether it needs something like permanent deletion (revdel?)? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
CU question
Hello, I know that a lot of CU-accessible data is automatically deleted several months after it's generated. Does anything survive this deletion, beyond what everyone can see? The vandal who's been mega-disrupting the reference desks has recently used several very old accounts (including one created well before you created yours), and I'm wondering if it's a case of account compromise or really really ancient sleepers. I'm guessing you couldn't help, since the users in question haven't edited since long before the deletion period (the one I mention last edited in 2010, for example), but if you would have access to anything beyond what I do, I'd appreciate help when you have the opportunity. Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Nyttend--I tend to defer all fancy questions to folks like Ponyo, zzuuzz, or Bbb23. Sometimes reports are written up on the CU wiki (like SPIs here, to some extent, with the salient difference that we can openly talk about behavior and stuff, because "regular" editors can't see it), but I don't know if there's a report on that one. So--that d-bag the other day was indeed that one, as identified by MarnetteD? Drmies (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- If I recall this has been discussed either on the functionaries list or the oversight list and CheckUser hasn't been much use. On the ancient sleepers question, my assumption for most Lazarus accounts in general is compromise/sold if they're acting in a way that would otherwise be considered disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't checked either one of those lists in a while, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure where MarnetteD comes in. I addressed this issue at User talk:Favonian#User:Fadedbasket block (this is the registered-in-2006 username); Favonian blocked someone who'd been doing this kind of vandalism, and I asked basically "do you have solid evidence that this was sockpuppetry, or is there a chance that it could be a compromised account instead". I was afraid that any question would sound confrontational, so I did my best to be non-confrontational about it, since a block was unquestionably needed for one reason or the other; basically I wanted to see whether account-compromise were possible, since if this guy's gaining unauthorised access to old accounts, it's more of a problem than mere sockpuppetry, since he might try to gain access to active accounts as well as inactive ones. Thanks, Tony; I supposed that would be the answer, but I figured I might as well check, in case I supposed erroneously. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- MarnetteD comes in via a section above this one, "More r/d on a Friday evening". Drmies (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi again Nyttend. I happen to have some familiarity with these cases, and I'd say they're separate. The refdesk troll has lazarus'd a few accounts such as K. R. Freeman and Seckroots and Lqd8er brunt and FamousGaga. I'd say they're not compromised. People say, rather credibly, that it's this guy. The image vandal, well you've seen my opinion on that. So the former of these is using a scatter gun approach of spamming garbled libel based around the refdesks with open proxies. The latter is adding porn to articles linked from the main page, especially TFA, from defined networks, and the use of lazarus'd accounts is definitely a recent (and CU-confirmed) development. I'd be happy to share any further details, but I still think there's no indication whether the accounts were compromised. Looking at the edits, I'd say it's likely they're not the original owner. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the help, zzuuzz. Confused, though: if he's not the original owner, and he's not compromised them from the original owners, how could he have gotten control of them? Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The last thing we need is more confusion :) Try this and then read again. The accounts related to the refdesk vandal (four are listed above) are probably not compromised. The accounts related to the image vandal (five are mentioned on Favonian's talk page) probably are compromised. Libel on the refdesks, Porn on the main page. Just another day eh. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Where are we supposed to put libellous porn, please?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb23, see Revenge porn. zzuuzz, thank you; I understand you're distinguishing between the accounts doing one kind of disruption and the accounts doing another kind. Just missing one bit: I'd be happy to share any further details, but I still think there's no indication whether the accounts were compromised. Looking at the edits, I'd say it's likely they're not the original owner. How could an account be not-compromised and not-used-by-original-owner if it's in use by someone? Pretty sure that "used by original owner" and "used by someone other than original owner" covers all the bases for an account that's being used :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- And compromised porn also belongs at Kompromat. So there's two different things there. In terms of CU evidence, there's no indication either way for either user. We're all guessing. The refdesk troll lazarus'd some accounts that had previously edited the refdesks in a trollish manner. They look like the same user in every respect. Then in relation to the other user, being a bit of a geek with an occasional penchant for precise wording, I tend to view "compromised" and "not used by the original owner" as slightly different things. A compromise suggests unauthorised access. I'd say we don't have enough information to reach that conclusion. Beans. You may however think of them as equivalent. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb23, see Revenge porn. zzuuzz, thank you; I understand you're distinguishing between the accounts doing one kind of disruption and the accounts doing another kind. Just missing one bit: I'd be happy to share any further details, but I still think there's no indication whether the accounts were compromised. Looking at the edits, I'd say it's likely they're not the original owner. How could an account be not-compromised and not-used-by-original-owner if it's in use by someone? Pretty sure that "used by original owner" and "used by someone other than original owner" covers all the bases for an account that's being used :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Where are we supposed to put libellous porn, please?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The last thing we need is more confusion :) Try this and then read again. The accounts related to the refdesk vandal (four are listed above) are probably not compromised. The accounts related to the image vandal (five are mentioned on Favonian's talk page) probably are compromised. Libel on the refdesks, Porn on the main page. Just another day eh. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the help, zzuuzz. Confused, though: if he's not the original owner, and he's not compromised them from the original owners, how could he have gotten control of them? Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure where MarnetteD comes in. I addressed this issue at User talk:Favonian#User:Fadedbasket block (this is the registered-in-2006 username); Favonian blocked someone who'd been doing this kind of vandalism, and I asked basically "do you have solid evidence that this was sockpuppetry, or is there a chance that it could be a compromised account instead". I was afraid that any question would sound confrontational, so I did my best to be non-confrontational about it, since a block was unquestionably needed for one reason or the other; basically I wanted to see whether account-compromise were possible, since if this guy's gaining unauthorised access to old accounts, it's more of a problem than mere sockpuppetry, since he might try to gain access to active accounts as well as inactive ones. Thanks, Tony; I supposed that would be the answer, but I figured I might as well check, in case I supposed erroneously. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't checked either one of those lists in a while, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to explain why my view on this is slightly different than zzuuzz’s: it strains the limits of my imagination to think that someone has an army of decade old accounts ready at a moments notice. That’d require record keeping that puts the IRS to shame, even if the same exact password was used on all accounts, and an assumption that over 8-10 years the records hadn’t become lost, etc. Add that to the fact that these likely would have come up on loginwiki CU at some point near the initial creation if an LTA really was creating an army. Not that it matters at this point, but for the academic discussion, I think sometimes considering the “humans are dumb” perspective in addition to the on-wiki stuff is useful. Anyway, my 2¢ on the theory here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Fan club
Seems you and Oshwah have quite the fan club. ceranthor 17:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, we must be doing something right. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Don't these people have anything better to do? I guess not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom
Hey Drmies! Just a heads up that your listing on the ArbCom candidates page is a bit broken, I think because you put your statement directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Drmies and not at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Drmies/Statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- GD. What have I done wrong this time? I put it right above the line that said "put it right above the line"... Seriously, I don't know what I did wrong--with the template, I just followed the "create nomination" thing, I think. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK I was going to move it to "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Drmies/Statement" and then replace the original line with etc., but I'm just going to sit here, look dumb, and listen to the rain hoping that someone will fix it before I make any more mistakes... (speaking of rain, I need to go...if you can repair this, GorillaWarfare, I'd appreciate it: it wouldn't be the first time you bail me out) Drmies (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did the same. I guess neither of us are good at reading directions. —kelapstick(bainuu) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think I've fixed it. Good luck! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
May God have mercy upon your soul. Good luck! PackMecEng (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Did I do an evil thing, PackME, that I need mercy? Thanks, but it's not the worst thing in the world. I just hope they haven't made shit more complicated in the meantime. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not that I am aware of! But when you make it I wish you a happy and drama free time. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is this a bad time to tell you you have to fill out the vacation allowance forms in triplicate now? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- THERE IS A VACATION ALLOWANCE??? Are you Canadian or something? Cause we don't do that here in the US of A. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- OMG you are! Please take me in, and my family? I asked K-stick but he keeps threatening me with hockey and rodeos, like that's some precondition. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is this a bad time to tell you you have to fill out the vacation allowance forms in triplicate now? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Glad to see you're running. Vanamonde (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK, does anyone know where to find the Electoral Commission? Drmies (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- WT:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- HAAAAAAAAA hidden/piped in the "Scrutineering period" section. Holy moly. Mz7, or Swarm, would you mind giving that link a bit more prominence, like in Template:ACE2018 or in the text on WP:ACE2018? Thanks--esp. now it's an interesting thing. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- We should probably change WP:ACE2018, but in Template:ACE2018, you can get there by following the link "Contact the coordinators". Mz7 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Mz7, I see you, thanks--but what I was looking for initially was "Electoral commission" since that's the term I saw dropped somewhere earlier tonight. I remember now we used the term "coordinators" on the ArbCom list, but I sure wasn't looking for it tonight. Can I offer a suggestion? A sentence on the ACE page that says something like "the coordinators run the show, and click *here* to see what they're up to". Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- One semi-odd thing is that the coordinators are never listed anywhere. One can only sort of infer who they are by determining who is discussing things in a semi-authoritative voice on the talkpage. It would be good to list all of the coordinators at the top of the coordinators' page. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Softlavender and Drmies: Alright, I gave it a shot. I've added a section about the ElectCom to WP:ACE2018, with most of the language coming from the header at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Electoral Commission. I included a list of this year's commissioners there. It might be a little more verbose than what you all had in mind. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- One semi-odd thing is that the coordinators are never listed anywhere. One can only sort of infer who they are by determining who is discussing things in a semi-authoritative voice on the talkpage. It would be good to list all of the coordinators at the top of the coordinators' page. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Mz7, I see you, thanks--but what I was looking for initially was "Electoral commission" since that's the term I saw dropped somewhere earlier tonight. I remember now we used the term "coordinators" on the ArbCom list, but I sure wasn't looking for it tonight. Can I offer a suggestion? A sentence on the ACE page that says something like "the coordinators run the show, and click *here* to see what they're up to". Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've added it. Not sure why it wasn't there. Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- We should probably change WP:ACE2018, but in Template:ACE2018, you can get there by following the link "Contact the coordinators". Mz7 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- HAAAAAAAAA hidden/piped in the "Scrutineering period" section. Holy moly. Mz7, or Swarm, would you mind giving that link a bit more prominence, like in Template:ACE2018 or in the text on WP:ACE2018? Thanks--esp. now it's an interesting thing. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Great! If even you have got troubles finding your way in the bureaucracy, then it's not only my stupidity which is too be blamed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think one issue is/was that the navigation template was on the top of many of the pages but on the bottom of quite a number of them instead (perhaps inadvertently due to how each page was built). I've now ensured that they all have the template at the top. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Once upon a time in the mythical universe of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 was an arbitration clerk. Unlike his experience as an SPI clerk, in which he was reasonably proficient, Bbb23 quickly realized that this alternate universe did not comply with the usual laws of physics (not that Bbb23 undersands physics), and nothing was what it seemed. Despite the kind assistance of other clerks and Committee members, Bbb23 became more and more frustrated that he couldn't make the necessary mind-shift to this new universe. He resigned a total failure and has had PTACSD ever since. He's not bitter, though. He just thinks, as any reasonable person would, that all templates should die.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Ya cannae change tha laws of physics, Captain Doc Mice!!" Well, except at ArbCom, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb23, the great thing about being an Arb, is all you do is show up, wave your arm, mumble something (preferably in Latin), and be gone. The clerks are the ones with the difficult jobs (I try not to make it a thankless job, by thanking them when I can, but don't nearly enough). --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken
On 13 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Dutch playwright Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken wrote very popular classicist tragedies, and sent an ode in French to George Washington, for which he thanked her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It was a very pleasant surprise...
...to see that you'd put yourself up for ArbCom again. Mazel tov! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ha thanks! But we have a lot of good candidates. Then again, as you know, I'm the only rational editor here... Drmies (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- In the spirit of not cluttering the candidate page; I’ll ask my questions here instead:
Brocket754
I saw that after the SPI for Brandon5015, you indeffed Brocket754 as a sockpuppet. I thought you might want to know that now they're playing around on their talk page; making profanity redirect creation-requests, attacks using profanity, making unblock requests for themselves and the sockmaster, claiming that they're not a sock of Brandon, and sometimes blanking everything. You might want to revoke their talk page access to prevent anymore disruption. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks User:SkyGazer 512; I had a look and revdeleted a copyvio, but I'm going to leave the page as it is--they removed their rant, after all. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for responding to most of my questions regarding your candidacy for ArbCom. I am thanking you here so as to avoid clutter at that page. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ha, sure thing--thanks for asking them. I have to tell you, I thought of asking questions, in past elections, but I can't really come up with good ones, so I appreciate you and your colleagues taking the time and putting in the effort. I'm not sure if we've really met or worked together, but you've been here a long time and I appreciate your service. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Revdel script
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js might be useful. Also, there's no easy way to deal with abuse filters. Amory is a saint. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Tony, it's late and I'm not smart. Can you tell me what to do? Or can you install it for me? You can see in my log that I'm tired. I really don't understand what they're saying about the filters, but I believe you. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Drmies, paste {{subst:iusc|User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js}} in bottom of User:Drmies/common.js and save it. — regards, Revi 04:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and revi explained it just as I sent you an email. Anyway, the email also explains the other thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Viktor Prokopenya
Viktor Prokopenya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has quite a bit of criticism in it. An editor seemed to be whitewashing the article so I reverted. The editor left a message on talk:Viktor Prokopenya#Criticism and controversies and the following section: talk:Viktor Prokopenya#Critics, claiming France's(?) "right to disappear" and BLPCRIME. I reverted and left a bumbling reply on the #Critics section. I am not sure if the content is UNDUE not. Thanks Jim1138 talk 08:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have a really hard time understanding what they're saying. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow
I just heard this stat D. Alabama has been behind on the scoreboard for a whopping 1 minute 10 seconds this season. How did you survive that trauma. HeeHee Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 16:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was rough. Bourbon, lots of bourbon. But we trust the process. Finish the play. Etc. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but...
...I don't see where Blankenship69 represents a username violation as stated in your block. What the heck am I missing? Let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- ...I see. lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Haha I note you weren't questioning the block on User talk:Deadman's dick. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Doc, I gotta agree with Osh here. Why don't you just change it to a vandal only account block? Witness "Summer of 69", athletes with that number and a year? John from Idegon (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- HA! Nope! That block was perfectly in-order ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- John, sometimes 69 is fine, sometimes 88 is fine, sometimes 420--and sometimes it's not, which we tend to judge by the edits... Drmies (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- ...had to look at the page--the relevant phrase is "...suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia", which provides a certain amount of leeway but requires judgment, here supported by the actual edits. I used to struggle a bit with this early on in my admin career; when you get that block button, which I hope you will, you'll find what I did, that you start thinking about usernames harder. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, as Drmies stated - usernames in combination with the user's edits can expedite a block once the user's intentions become clear and with both pieces of information put together. I use this frequently when evaluating a user's disruption. An example of when I did so today (picking one out of the many) is Dylanthomasissohotomg431. The username seems... okay I guess... in itself, but after the user made those two edits on Dylan Thomas, the user's intentions became clear and the account is clearly a VOA. Now, in this example (and with Blankenship69 as well), I wouldn't call the usernames a violation of policy, but the blocks are certainly warranted. In most cases, I consider usernames a violation of policy and state such in blocks if the account can be blocked based off their username in itself and without any edits to support it. However, there are many situations and times where the username violation becomes clear due to the user's edits as well... every situation is unique and we can't always stick to hard-set criteria when it comes to usernames and disruption. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Osh, I do believe that's what I said in many fewer words. Guy should be blocked, the username may be a piece of why, but unambiguously, his edits were all vandalism. Hence a vandalism-only block, which has the benefit of also having more permanence than a username block. John from Idegon (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- John from Idegon, Oshwah, let me sidetrack you all for a moment and ask you about this. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- John from Idegon - Sorry, I didn't mean to repeat what you said as if I wasn't listening... I do agree that in this case, it's a VOA and not a username violation. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Haha I note you weren't questioning the block on User talk:Deadman's dick. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Request for comment at Talk:Greg Gianforte
Hello, I've noticed that you've taken a bit of interest in the edits to delete a "see also" section link to the Committee to Protect Journalists from the article on US Representative Greg Gianforte. Would you care to weigh in on this issue over at.... Talk:Greg_Gianforte#Wholesale_deletion_of_"See_also"_section. Thank you for your consideration, Critical Chris
Arbitration CA notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 07:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Arbitration CA notice