François Robere (talk | contribs) |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
:Well, for starters, I wasn't aware that one side was socking in the dispute, so it looked like multiple editors engaged in a content dispute. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal#top|talk]]) 02:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
:Well, for starters, I wasn't aware that one side was socking in the dispute, so it looked like multiple editors engaged in a content dispute. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal#top|talk]]) 02:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:: Two sides.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RadoLondyn] [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 14:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC) |
:: Two sides.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RadoLondyn] [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 14:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::Sure, that account should also be looked into and possibly banned, like all the strange brand new accounts that have been popping up for the past few months (many of which you've been going out of your way to enable and support). Or better yet, just put in all articles under extended protection.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 16:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 27 January 2020 == |
== ''The Signpost'': 27 January 2020 == |
Revision as of 16:42, 27 January 2020
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DJDan18
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DJDan18 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm partially blocked
Hi, Grim Reaper. I noticed you testing partial blocks, and was inspired to try for myself, so I blocked Bishzilla (with some trepidation) from editing User:Bishzilla/Self-requested pocketings for three hours. So.. I checked it was working, and then thought I'd better unblock her before she destroys Tokyo or something. But it turns out I can't; I get "Unauthorized: You cannot block or unblock other users because you are yourself blocked." Oops. An IP block, no doubt. But is it supposed to work like that — if an admin is partially blocked, just from one page, they can't block or unblock others? (I did try some others, and no, I can't block anybody.) But you unblocked yourself after you were done testing, didn't you..? Anyway, would you be kind enough to unblock Bishzilla? Little admin stalkers, if Reaper is not around, perhaps somebody else might oblige? Bishonen | talk 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC).
- Fixed. It's a known bug, apparently. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Best disable the autoblock next time... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I realized that a little belatedly; I kind of missed that the usual options were still there. Poor Zilla. Thank you, Reaper. Are you/Phabricator saying that if an admin sock is partially blocked, the admin can't block people? Unfortunate to say the least, especially with the behaviour of some of my socks. Bishonen | talk 17:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC).
I know I know
Re: Institute of National Remembrance.
WP:WRONGVERSION and all that, but is it REALLY necessary to enable and encourage sock accounts by protecting articles to THEIR version? All you have to do here is semi-protect it here.
Why do we get this wrong over and over and over and over and over again??? It just seems like common sense to NOT "protect the sock puppet's version". Wikipedia. Always finding new ways to be ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 00:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for starters, I wasn't aware that one side was socking in the dispute, so it looked like multiple editors engaged in a content dispute. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Two sides.[1] François Robere (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, that account should also be looked into and possibly banned, like all the strange brand new accounts that have been popping up for the past few months (many of which you've been going out of your way to enable and support). Or better yet, just put in all articles under extended protection. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Two sides.[1] François Robere (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 January 2020
- From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium
- News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia
- Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta
- Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019
- News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations
- Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015
- From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report