Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Kingsindian/Archive 4) (bot |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Kingsindian/Archive 4) (bot |
||
(18 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== |
== Precious anniversary == |
||
{{User QAIbox |
|||
| title = Precious |
|||
| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg |
|||
| image_upright = 0.35 |
|||
| bold = [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious#Kingsindian|Three years!]] |
|||
}} |
|||
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 06:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Four years now! --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 09:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I see that you have resigned from the discussion. Kind of a crowded forum. If you would like to talk via google hangouts or skype, i would be willing. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{-}} |
|||
: {{re|Jytdog}} I would probably prefer email. In any case, I need a break from this matter for now. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::I thought talking would be more swift. (I would do that voice only if the anonymity is your concern). |
|||
::I sympathize with your frustration; whatever you like, or nothing. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{re|Jytdog}} I usually need time to think through what I'm saying, and I do lots of edits and rewriting. That's why I prefer asynchronous communication like email. There's no hurry about the matter, since the outcome isn't really in the balance now. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 18:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Email is fine. :) And only if you like. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I hope that I’m not intruding here, but might be of interest to yourself and Jytdog (who I assume has watch listed here) the article Peter Hitchens wrote on his blog: [http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/goodbye-wikipedia-and-thanks-for-all-the-laughs.html Goodbye Wikipedia and thanks for all the laughs].--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literaturegeek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">''T@1k?''</span>]] 10:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: {{re|Literaturegeek}} Thanks. I already knew about it though: Hitchens emailed a link to me. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 10:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed == |
|||
Sorry: I all but completely left Wikipedia several months ago after an unpleasant experience on de.wikipedia.org, hence I have only just seen that you mentioned me during the Clocback COI discussion. It's far too late now, but still for what it's worth: your assessment of the situation fits in very nicely with my perceptions from the time when I was active on the Bell article. Clockback was upfront about his RL identity and his agenda was well known. At one point the other user and I were in agreement that the section needed to be pruned back, but I found it difficult to hold a reasoned discussion with them about how to do it. I'm unfamiliar with dispute resolution on en.wikipedia.org, but it looks as if you approached the COI discussion very conscientiously and were given a hard time for your pains: I am very sorry about that. My position: Although I sincerely hope that Bell is innocent of the allegations, I believe strongly in writing the WP article according to the current state of the reliable sources. --[[User:GroupCohomologist|GroupCohomologist]] ([[User talk:GroupCohomologist|talk]]) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Hello '''Kingsindian'''! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser|AutoWikiBrowser]] may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage|CheckPage]]. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at [[WP:PERM/AWB]]. Thank you! <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikBot II|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikBot II</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 17:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard == |
|||
== Arbitration case opened == |
|||
Hi. I saw your comments there. I am sorry we seem to have different views on what standard of sourcing we should use on articles on living people, and that the consensus seems to be totally against you. Can I suggest making any complaints you may have about my actions at a more relevant forum like AN/I? Obviously I don't think there was anything wrong with what I did, but if you do, that would make more sense than (apparently) holding a long-term grudge. Thanks. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 10:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
: {{re|John}} I have no interest in complaining at ANI (the matter is not too important either way). And I don't know you, and don't plan to hold any long-term grudge against you. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 10:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog]]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence]]. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop]]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. |
|||
== 1RR == |
|||
All content, links, and diffs from the [[Special:PermanentLink/872120137#Jytdog|original ARC]] and the [[Special:Permalink/944557164#Jytdog - re-opened 2018 case|latest ARC]] are being read into the evidence for this case. |
|||
"Perhaps I should collect all these absurd cases and open an ARCA request." — That is a very good idea and I'll help as I can. But ArbCom have shown a frustrating lack of interest in clarifying their own rulings. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 13:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*Ghcool it was not his first revert so the rule doesn't apply. --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 13:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{re|Zero0000}} I am a bit pressed for time now, but I'll probably open an ARCA request soon. My opinion is that it would be best to simply go back to 1RR, with no frills at all. It's simple and a bright line, which is what it should be. One cannot really handle all the game-playing that goes on in political areas with one rule. So the best thing is to have a simple (and effective) rule. More complicated cases can be handled with discretionary sanctions. What do you think? [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 07:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Going back to the old 1RR rule is not a good idea: remember why it was changed: if A added something, B removed it, then A could immediately reinsert it, as that first addition was not a "revert". Basically anyone insisting on adding something to an article would win, in a one-to-one situation, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Re|Huldra}} On the other hand the new version is good for knee-jerk reverters. Someone adds good text, someone reverts it just because they don't like it, now it has to stay out for 24 hours after which the cycle can repeat. I'm sure it is impossible to write a workable rule that stops all types of bad behavior. The most crying need is to get rid of the ambiguous phrase "original author"; beyond that I'm not sure. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 00:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::: {{re|Huldra}} Well, no: anyone insisting on adding something to an article would not win (ultimately). They may win exactly one round, which is only 24 hours. Ultimately, [[WP:ONUS]] is still policy, as are prohibitions against edit-warring. If they continue to add stuff over repeated reverts, they're violating policy. <p> The reason I think 1RR is the best rule is that it is simple and completely dependent on your own behaviour. You are given one revert every 24 hours, regardless of what your "opponent" does. One does not worry about whether the other guy is "reverting" or not. So, for example, if you only edit the page once a day, you cannot run afoul of 1RR. Furthermore, it works better with the way watchlists work on Wikipedia: one sees a change one doesn't like, one checks whether one hasn't reverted within the past 24 hours -- and then it is safe to revert. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 06:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)</p> |
|||
:::::{{Re|Zero0000}} and Kingsindian: Remember how it was under the old 1RR rule, before I started all this. Then you could have this: |
|||
:::::*12.00 A add something new |
|||
:::::*12.01 B removes it |
|||
:::::*12.02 A readd exactly the same stuff...as that first addition was not technically a revert, this would be ok(!) |
|||
:::::*12.02 ''next'' day: the earliest B could remove it again, without breaking 1RR. |
|||
:::::*12.03 ''next'' day: A could readd it a third time.........etc, etc, etc |
|||
:::::The above is why I said that you had to be 2 editors wanting to remove some stuff, in order to counteract 1 who wanted to add it. |
|||
:::::I agree that if you could only add/remove ''the same stuff one time in 24 hours'', then that would be the best solution; but that was ''not'' what the old 1RR was, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: {{re|Huldra}} I understand what you're saying. But the second instance is not the same as the first. And the third instance is not the same as the second (and so on). [[WP:ONUS]] and prohibitions on edit-warring still exist; they are meant to handle exactly this issue. The 1RR rule (and the 3RR rule, from which it is derived) is not meant to handle all bad behaviour, only one kind of bad behaviour. Also, see Zero's comment about the flip side of the "tweaked 1RR" rule: it encourages obstructionist behaviour by revert-happy people. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 03:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yeah, in theory, but I think that we both know that in practice admins hate to admonish someone over rules which are diffuse. And "edit-warring" is such a diffuse rule. I would rather we had something which you suggested above: that any edit done 24 hrs after your own last edit, is ok. If we had such a rule, everyone, both editors and admins, would know exactly what were expected at us. And ''clarity'' of rules should be our utmost ambition, (if the rules are to be changed again.) (That last AE report, where several admins simply threw in the towel, saying they didn't understand the rules, was a disgrace, IMO.) [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: My 2 cents - "original authorship" makes sense, but it also makes sense to have a uniform standard, project wide, for 1rr (or 3rr for that matter - same issue if someone is willing to go to 3) - getting admins to understand specific arb xRR rules... Is grounds for confusion. Perhaps adding new content to an article should count as a revert (for xRR) - as it undoes the choice of other editors to ignore the information up until that point? [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org |
|||
== Another one == |
|||
For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Cthomas3|'''''<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: larger; color: black;"><span style="color: brown;">C</span>Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3</sup></span>''''']] ([[User talk:Cthomas3|talk]]) 17:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=866981021&oldid=866975284 here]. Pinging [[User:Zero0000]] for yet another discussion of our Byzantine rules, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey? == |
|||
Hello :) |
|||
I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article. |
|||
For more information, you can check out my [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Wars_and_the_Israel-Palestine_Conflict meta-wiki research page] or my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarabnas user page], where I will be posting my findings when I am done. |
|||
I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdriEAkTQCq5Us26lxEqbjfw4jh3ktqTLaE8FN7fYY7Eph1Fw/viewform?usp=sf_link this quick survey] ''before 8 August 2021.'' |
|||
Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project. |
|||
Thanks so much, |
|||
Sarah Sanbar |
|||
[[User:Sarabnas|Sarabnas]] <sup>[[User:Sarabnas|I'm researching Wikipedia]]</sup> <sub>[[User_talk:Sarabnas|Questions?]]</sub> 16:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 02:33, 25 July 2021
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Precious anniversary
Three years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Kingsindian! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?
Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.
For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.
I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.
Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.
Thanks so much,
Sarah Sanbar
Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 16:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)