EdwardsBot (talk | contribs) →Tech News: 2013-29: new section |
→Premature close: new section |
||
Line 248: | Line 248: | ||
</div> 17:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) |
</div> 17:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0525 --> |
<!-- EdwardsBot 0525 --> |
||
== Premature close == |
|||
The sanction removal at [[WP:AN#Request for sanction removal]] was in my view closed pre-maturely before anyone has had sufficient opportunity to voice an opinion that is factually based. It is not possible, in my view to factually oppose the sanction removal. Opposing the sanction removal for deliberately misspelling a word as an example of words being misspelled is not a valid reason to oppose, nor can I see any valid oppose votes. In deciding sanctions the question is do the sanctions benefit Wikipedia, and I do not see any possible yes answers to that question. Would you be willing to allow the request to run at least seven days or until there have been no new comments for 36 hours? (archiving is set to 48 hours) [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva|talk]]) 06:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:26, 17 July 2013
Old talk is at /Archive.
Please note that I will usually reply to messages on this page, unless you ask me to respond elsewhere.
Please use the link provided in the blue box above which says "Please leave a new message."
This way, you will be able to give your comment a subject/headline.
If an admin action made by me is more than a year old, you may reverse or modify it without consulting me first. However, I would appreciate being notified after the fact.
No sanction on the sock master? RashersTierney (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- No. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Since it was June 23 already and the socking occurred most recently on June 11, the standard one-week block that should have been levied on the master would have already expired. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Punitive my arse! No socking record? Fuck all response for dishonest editing. What a waste of my time. RashersTierney (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- The record is the SPI itself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- No. A record would be a sanction on the sock master. RashersTierney (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- What benefit is there? How would a 1-week block now prevent any disruption from him? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would be recorded in their block log. They would be on warning not to sock again. Is this really how we now address sock puppetry? RashersTierney (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's far from ideal, but it's a logical consequence of a backlog. When it takes this long to deal with the case, the closing admin gets left with a bad choice: let the bad behaviour appear to have no consequences, or put a block in place that it's hard to describe as preventative. A reasonable compromise might be to put a one minute block on the account with a pointer to the SPI in order to make sure that future admins are aware of this if there's a recurrence of any kind of disruption.—Kww(talk) 01:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would be recorded in their block log. They would be on warning not to sock again. Is this really how we now address sock puppetry? RashersTierney (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- What benefit is there? How would a 1-week block now prevent any disruption from him? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- No. A record would be a sanction on the sock master. RashersTierney (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- The record is the SPI itself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Punitive my arse! No socking record? Fuck all response for dishonest editing. What a waste of my time. RashersTierney (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Two more socks
I've got two innocent-sounding unblock requests from User_talk:FoolMeOnce2Times and User talk:CamelBaks, both tagged and blocked as socks of User:MooshiePorkFace as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277/Archive. The trick is that I can't find either name on that SPI. Is there a different archive I might check? Or should I leave these for another checkuser to confirm? Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Tech news: 2013-27
14:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Captain Correcto
Hi King of Hearts, you closed Captain Correcto SPI last week. The IP was mainly editing the Better together page. Well today CC has turned up and started editing on it. WP:3rr brech included. Your call dude, will I report him or do you want to have a chat with him? Cheers bud. Murry1975 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please file a report at SPI if sockpuppetry is involved, or an ordinary AN3 if not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Dick1968
You recently unblocked Dick1968 pending a CHU and with their promise not to make further COI contributions. COI is in fact exactly what they have been doing since that time at the Vijay Goel article, attempting to use it as a means of political campaigning. Please could you review? - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- CHU request is here but the entire situation of naming is confusing me. They seem to be contributing as Amaratechnofutures (talk · contribs) but User talk:Dick1968 suggests they had requested Dineshjatjjn (talk · contribs) and the CHU refers to Admindcdelhi9 (talk · contribs)}, while another request also exists for another name. A case of "I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure", perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello friends, I just want to updat emore information, with picture only, I am new on Wikipedia, So i just send request for change name. Rritu (talk · contribs), Vamindian (talk · contribs) and Tkimtg (talk · contribs) these are not me .
- You've just sent me an email that pretty much passes the duck test for one of the above prior usages. I'd take this to WP:SPI if only I could work out which is the master account. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Filing an SPI is the best idea here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it would be if I could work out what name came first and whether any of the others were CHU cases, along with the ones I've already found. I mean, Dick1968 appears to have no contributions but was blocked for POV pushing? I think this needs an admin to sort it out because they have access to historic views that I do not. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Take a look at my response here :) ·addshore· talk to me! 08:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it would be if I could work out what name came first and whether any of the others were CHU cases, along with the ones I've already found. I mean, Dick1968 appears to have no contributions but was blocked for POV pushing? I think this needs an admin to sort it out because they have access to historic views that I do not. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Filing an SPI is the best idea here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Closure of sockpuppet investigation
You've essentially ignored WP:DUCK. GotGlue's behavior suggests that he's probably a sockpuppet of somebody. I think you were wrong to close it without a check pbp 03:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- CheckUser is not for fishing King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipediocracy
I hadn't counted the number of reverts and wasn't sure if it was a BLP or not. However at the same time you blocked User:Mathsci I fully protected the Wikipediocracy page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- IMO, protection should be used when multiple users on both sides are revert warring with each other. However, in this case, Mathsci has been the only editor on that side since Dougweller unprotected yesterday, so I believe blocking is preferable to protection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Normally I would agree but in this case there was a claim of BLP. If it was then it was then protecting the article would work to allow the editors to discuss it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi KoH. Per your note on Mathsci's talk page and his agreement to leave the article alone while ArbCom looks into how to deal with it, I have unblocked him. 28bytes (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For acting against Celeste6566 and her sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC) |
Deneuve15
You probably want to deny his appeal of my block as well. It's kind of strange to have him appealing my block when you've blocked on top of it.—Kww(talk) 00:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Some info
I'm guessing your comments at AN/editwarring were due to a lack of info.
This is merely the case where several editors with a declared bias, didn't like a close, are trying to interpret it in a way to support their POV, and are edit warring over it and then trying to accuse the closer (me) of edit warring with them.
Reverting a close, especially while a follow up discussion (which I asked for) is ongoing, is, as I'm sure you'd agree, disruptive.
(See also: User_talk:Good_Olfactory#3po.)
Anyway, since she's now run to AN/I with accusations, I guess I need to comment there next.
Happy editing. - jc37 08:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I still don't know everything that's going on, so maybe I could have looked at it more carefully. Though in a similar case what I'd personally do (and have done in the past) when my close of a discussion is challenged is to revert once or twice (or never in the case of an admin action) and if they insist, wait for others to defend my close. This has two advantages: 1) you are not edit warring yourself and no one can accuse you of such, and 2) if your close was actually rubbish then you will quickly find that out by the lack of defenders, instead of escalating the problem further (I'm sure I've avoided being dragged to ANI on at least one occasion by this principle). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fair points all around.
- While this wasn't a concern before, I'm now concerned that such a tack rewards the idea that bullying a closer trying to implement a close is acceptable and appropriate. There's just a lot of stuff I'm seeing here that seems so contrary to the consensus process and the "wiki-way".
- I realise we see examples of this all too often at AN/I, but I guess I just really would like to think (my own AGF) that editors, should want come together and discuss. But I guess maybe I'm too old school, and "whoever can bully the best" is the way of Wikipedia now. But I'd like to hope not, and that we'd all step up and try to prevent that. dunno. But then, I'm merely one editor...
- In the meantime, I fully expect I'll be repeatedly cudgeled by them with your block comment. (And I suppose I should note, that one of the 4 of then has once again reverted the close.) Part of me just wants to walk away. This is utter nonsense, about something I honestly could care less about. But I just don't like the precedent. Closers shouldn't be treated this way. And if we don't stand up to this nonsense, every future closer will likely have to deal with this. - jc37 05:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've noted your accusations of bullying at AN/I. Doing it on a page that you didn't expect me to be watching instead of saying it to me straight doesn't impress me much either. For King of Hearts's information, I was not part of or even aware of the CfD, I have never encountered Fayenatic London before, I have had occasional dealings with BHG, and I've been on the same side as her about 50% of the time, and I don't even know who the fourth member of this "cabal" is. Scolaire (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
When you move a case to a different sockmaster, you need to also update the "User compare report". Not sure if anyone had told you or if it just slipped your mind. I went ahead and updated it. Also, we normally make the move without a redirect unless there is a specific reason, but I noticed [11]. Again, not sure if that was on purpose or you didn't know. If that was a mistake, you can just G6 it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was never told this before. I'll keep in mind in the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem at all, just wanting to help. Even though I'm still labelled a trainee, I've actually been there over a year, so pretty familiar with procedure. You can ask anytime you have a question. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown: I'm still not quite sure on the specific rules for this. There are three ways to move something: 1) leave no redirect; 2) leave a redirect; or 3) leave a piped {{SPIarchive notice}}. When do you do each? For example, why did you do (3) on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MatthewBarclay (a very recent case) but (1) on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IranitGreenberg (which has been the name of the case for a long time and is hence likely to be referred to)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm off-wiki for the most part right now, so you might need to ask Reaper some of this. Of all the clerks, he is the most knowledgeable when it comes to the paperwork (and arguably, everything else there). He did correct me one point. If there was a CU done on the OLD name, then you leave the redirect so the CU log isn't a redlink (I've corrected my mistake above). As for the template, most of the time those are generated automatically when you archive. I've not ever added one manually. I suppose there may be a circumstance when ignoring all rules and using one to point somewhere else makes sense, I just can't think of one. Another thing, if someone creates a bogus or bad faith SPI report on a known good user, we will often delete them via G6 technical once it is obvious that there is no possible linkage, as a way to remove the mud that was slung. Obviously, the summary/log entry needs to be crystal clear on why you are CSDing it, and this should be used except in very obvious cases. Better details can be found in this rough draft [12]. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown: I'm still not quite sure on the specific rules for this. There are three ways to move something: 1) leave no redirect; 2) leave a redirect; or 3) leave a piped {{SPIarchive notice}}. When do you do each? For example, why did you do (3) on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MatthewBarclay (a very recent case) but (1) on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IranitGreenberg (which has been the name of the case for a long time and is hence likely to be referred to)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem at all, just wanting to help. Even though I'm still labelled a trainee, I've actually been there over a year, so pretty familiar with procedure. You can ask anytime you have a question. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 July 2013
- In the media: Jimmy Wales is not an Internet billionaire; a mass shooter's alleged Wikipedia editing
- Featured content: Queen of France
- WikiProject report: Puppies!
- News and notes: Wikipedia's medical collaborations gathering pace
- Discussion report: Snuggle, mainpage link to Wikinews, 3RR, and more
- Technology report: VisualEditor in midst of game-changing deployment series
- Traffic report: Yahoo! crushes the competition ... in Wikipedia views
- Arbitration report: Tea Party movement reopened, new AUSC appointments
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. If I am not mistaken the CU request was eventually declined on this one. However, the CU request was, in my opinion, fairly substantiated. CU has already been run once on this editor before and the results were 'Inconclusive' rather than 'Unrelated'. I think it should have been done again if only to clear Wran. Wran's only response was yet another personal attack against me ("this is clearly an accusation in 'bad faith' to prevent his own incompetent and abusive editing being examined"), for which they received a warning by another editor. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Seeking Advice
Hi KoH-
I recently published a comprehensive list of fatal aircraft-related occurrences and nominated it at FLC. I seem to be having an issue with members of the Aviation Portal. Based on the fact that my communication has been monitored, let me be clear I am not asking for your participation at AfD. Rather, based on the writing on the wall, I am curious if there is an appeals process post-AfD? I have spent considerable time and effort to create a comprehensive reference list that takes advantage of descriptive statistics while not crossing the line into original research. It draws on some material already on Wikipedia, incorporates new information, but goes significantly farther in terms of detail, organization, and functionality. It would seem that there is an effort to dismantle this new list, even if it survives AfD. Given the lacking level of detail, organization, and referencing of the comparison lists, as the new one is accused of being a duplicate of (1 & 2), I must assume there are other motives for the AfD. As an uninvolved admin, could you let me know if there any steps/options I am not aware of? Thank you in advance.--Godot13 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Views Needed, Parikipandla Narahari
The article which you deleted in past was strongly notable(http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-18/bhopal/36414703_1_facebook-and-twitter-gwalior-followers, http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/MadhyaPradesh/Got-a-complaint-Poke-Gwalior-collector-on-Facebook/Article1-945195.aspx and http://www.tehelka.com/gwaliors-game-changer/). I was to rewrite that article due to copyright violation, but I was banned till 5th July, so I wasn't available to rewrite it. And in between the article got deleted.
You restored this article earlier after reading http://www.tehelka.com/gwaliors-game-changer, but under second nomination it again got deleted with lack of notability. I am confused what people are upto.
Please tell me how was that possible? or was your review of restoring the article lacked somewhere? Your views will highly catch the drift. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)