Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) Undid revision 394387655 by Zucchinidreams please don't reinstate my comments when i've removed then (and they have not been replied to) |
|||
Line 311: | Line 311: | ||
*Furthermore, TR is still under a civility restriction even if blocked. This comments are a personal attack[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Triton_Rocker&diff=prev&oldid=394324328][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Triton_Rocker&diff=prev&oldid=394324540], they also cast aspersions about me and assume bad faith, thus I request an uninvolved sysop review this please--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
*Furthermore, TR is still under a civility restriction even if blocked. This comments are a personal attack[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Triton_Rocker&diff=prev&oldid=394324328][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Triton_Rocker&diff=prev&oldid=394324540], they also cast aspersions about me and assume bad faith, thus I request an uninvolved sysop review this please--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Triton Rocker continues to blame others for getting him into the position he finds himself. Even today he repeated (in bold) that I had gone against sanctions when I edited at BSkyB. I will repeat here again so that he may understand, I am under NO sanctions at BISE. In addition he considers that my edit was wrong even though it is supported by references. Triton Rocker seem only to see in one colour and concentrates on the supposed motives of others rather than looking at his own. Since the block was imposed he has done nothing that makes me believe he has changed ways or even to consider that what he did was wrong. [[User:Bjmullan|Bjmullan]] ([[User talk:Bjmullan|talk]]) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:01, 2 November 2010
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines
- Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
- SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
Earlier today, I advised Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) that I would request both he and his bot be blocked if he continued making trivial and unnecessary changes that have proved controversial without first obtaining consensus for these changes [1].
Rather than cease making the changes, he simply went on ahead with them on both his bot account ([2] [3] - unnecessary capitalization changes), and his main account ([4] changes spacing around header for no reason; [5] capitalizes template for no reason).
It is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that all templates should be ucfirst, it is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that headers should have no spacing around them. However, it is unreasonable to push these views on the community without first obtaining consensus for them. The edits today display a shocking disregard for the collaborative editing model and indicate that Rich feels that he does not have to operate within the consensus model.
This is unacceptable behaviour for a bot operator and administrator and I request he be blocked pending the decision of the proposed restriction below, which has been copied here from the ANI subpage for greater visibility. –xenotalk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Proposed editing restriction: Rich Farmbrough
- This is an alternative proposal to more strict proposal here, which generated a fair amount of support for a complete ban on non-manual editing
Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.
Thoughts? –xenotalk 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- What about emptying and deleting categories? This is what happened in the immediate incident. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unless a guideline directs such a change. There's always the potential for future guidelines on the matter. Otherwise, it seems a fine proposal to me. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Support--Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)- I think this is agreeable, this has my support. Rich, I hope you will do an effort in checking the diffs before you save, and not save them if they are mere changes of capitalisation, etc. Real mistakes, well, we all make them (as do our bots), I do hope your fellow editors will treat them for what they are. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now that's a whole lot better, being a lot less disruptive and punitive. But how about discussing with Rich about the categories' name changes and moving, instead of immediately reaching out for punishment? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This proposal is more about setting a bot policy rather than addressing or remedying the allegations. Bot policy should be debated elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Policy already exists to prohibit these changes (WP:AWB#Rules of use #3/4), this is more of a compliance issue. –xenotalk 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- We're prohibiting him from something that's already prohibited (using a bot or script to make cosmetic changes) and telling him to use the processes that he's already supposed to be using (CFD/TFD). Is there any substantial difference here from doing nothing and hoping the problem resolves itself? Mr.Z-man 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose there's also the prohibition of using even manual methods to make those cosmetic changes, and it looks like even if those cosmetic changes are made at the same time as another edit they would still be disallowed (without bot approval, which I suppose is already bot policy). To my mind this is just because it's difficult at times to tell if Rich is making manual, semi-automated or fully automated edits from his account (because, as you know, in violation of the bot policy he appears to make all three from his main account, without using proper edit summaries). Personally I think we should be stopping this problem there. With enforcing the bot policy and stopping him from making any bot like edits from his account, as proposed above. But would also support this alternative proposal after the original one. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- The restriction would make it clear that these changes lack consensus and he may be blocked if he continues making them prior to gathering consensus. –xenotalk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose We are all volunteers here and those who edit consistently and spent a lot of time working on here should be commended not restricted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Commended for creating ultra-infra-microstubs like Sanapia, Franklin Lafayette Riley, Jr., Martha Lipton? He is basically just ripping this page to create these useless articles. If the full text of your article is "Azeline Hearne (1825-1890?), Slave.[1]", then you should not be commended. Fram (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Notice that the result of such rapid (11 articles created in 4 minutes) and poor article creation is that you are bound to make mistakes (apart from not providing any useful information), because you don't have the time to check anything. The article Monroe C. Beardsley should not have been created, since we already have it in a useful form at Monroe Beardsley. Not really hard to find... Similarly, Morris Moe Foner is now redirected to the already existing Moe Foner. Fram (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
One of his ultra-infra-microstubs now looks like Sanapia. A good catch and highly interesting in my view. I'll be honest. I wish he did more article writing on here but he more than makes up for that with his auto generated editing which has gone to massive lengths to help clean up the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense
This is a storm in a teacup. No one cares about the bot capitalising clean-up templates, except that they think I am offending others by doing it. There are no others, except apparently xeno has moved to-day from neutral about it ("I don't care about the actual minor bits themselves") to opposed ("Me for one") and dePiep is saying the same in the next comment (about 20 minutes ago). Hardly anyone cares about any of them. Those that do have an opinion would almost certainly, by the figures, support capitalising of Infoboxes. I have explained that for technical reasons that I made a choice, some four years ago for Ucfirst rather than lcfirst - after much careful thought. the reason is to enable me to write regexes like:
- {{\s*(Cleanup|Attention[ _]+\(on[ _]+talk[ _]+page\)|Clean|Cu|CU|Tidy|Cleanup-quality|Cleanup-date|Attention[ _]+needed[ _]+\(article[ _]+page\)|Attn|Attention[ _]+see[ _]+talk|Attention|Attention[ _]+needed[ _]+\(talk[ _]+page\)|Clean[ _]+up|Cleanup-because|Clean-up|Cleanup-reason|Cleanup-since|Ugly|Cleanup-Pitt|Improve|Quality|Clu) *([\|}\n]) => {{Cleanup$2
and then do the date manipulation on a much simpler regex - a sample of which still runs to maybe 4 or 5 k.
Here's my proposed solutions:
- Forget it and go and write an enyclopedia.
- Have an centralized discussion on the case of cleanup templates. Tell me the result. I will implement that.
Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
- Your dismissive attitude ("No one cares..."; "Forget it and go and write an encyclopedia."; "There is no controversy here. Nothing to see, keep walking.") is a major part of the problem.
- I don't know how many people care about this, but I can tell you that I do. When I consult diffs to evaluate the edits, your bot's inconsequential changes waste my time. I've gone to your talk page to raise the issue, only to be reminded by the existing complaints (and your [non-]responses thereto) that you routinely ignore/dismiss such criticisms. So I don't bother to add my voice to the futile chorus (and I assume that others act in kind). —David Levy 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well not bothering hardly helps. Nor does the negative characterisation of my talk page. Nor yet quoting out of context.Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Well not bothering hardly helps. Nor does the negative characterisation of my talk page. Nor yet quoting out of context.Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Well not bothering hardly helps.
- Nor does wasting still more of my time by posting yet another comment for you to dismiss/ignore.
- Nor does the negative characterisation of my talk page.
- You mean my observation that you routinely dismiss/ignore these criticisms (just as you've done above)?
- Nor yet quoting out of context.
- How have I done so? Two of the quotations are taken from this very section, and I linked directly to the third's diff. —David Levy 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The diff is not the context. The context is an extensive conversation over several pages. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- The diff is not the context. The context is an extensive conversation over several pages. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Please link to whatever threads/diffs you believe provide essential context. —David Levy 00:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Incidentally on the substantive point you raise, you can set your w/l to ignore bots. HTH. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Incidentally on the substantive point you raise, you can set your w/l to ignore bots. HTH. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- And that would not be a reasonable solution. Sometimes people will still want to see bots. We shouldn't have to stop seeing other bots because yours is behaving badly. I will have to agree with the other people in that these edits cause more trouble than help. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that. I don't want to ignore bots (which would cause me to overlook problematic mass changes, including those caused by malfunctions). I want to be able to monitor their edits without having to wade through the utterly pointless ones that your bot performs. —David Levy 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd add on that score that ignoring bots seems to cause another issue: if, say, an editor vandalises a page, (edit 1) then a bot goes past and makes a change, (edit 2), nothing turns up in your watchlist. As you are set to ignore bot edits, the watchlist code doesn't notify you of any edits, as it only checks to see if the most recent one warrants notification. Thus you are lead to assume that nothing has happened in the article. I found this to be a particular problem with SineBot, but generally that flag causes too many issues to use it. - Bilby (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well as not a great user of watch-lists, I had seen that comment before, but not got round to investigating it. It seems like a suboptimal way for watch-lists to work. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" should bypass that particular concern. –xenotalk 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also vote for bug 9790. Rich Farmbrough, 02:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- Also vote for bug 9790. Rich Farmbrough, 02:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" should bypass that particular concern. –xenotalk 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well as not a great user of watch-lists, I had seen that comment before, but not got round to investigating it. It seems like a suboptimal way for watch-lists to work. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- I'd add on that score that ignoring bots seems to cause another issue: if, say, an editor vandalises a page, (edit 1) then a bot goes past and makes a change, (edit 2), nothing turns up in your watchlist. As you are set to ignore bot edits, the watchlist code doesn't notify you of any edits, as it only checks to see if the most recent one warrants notification. Thus you are lead to assume that nothing has happened in the article. I found this to be a particular problem with SineBot, but generally that flag causes too many issues to use it. - Bilby (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that. I don't want to ignore bots (which would cause me to overlook problematic mass changes, including those caused by malfunctions). I want to be able to monitor their edits without having to wade through the utterly pointless ones that your bot performs. —David Levy 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding your explanation regex: AWB can do this with the stock engine now without having to change the case (WP:AWB/TR). This is why I asked you to update SmackBot to the latest SVN snapshot. And you're right, I said I don't care about the minor bits themselves - I do care about the unnecessary, disruptive, and distracting changes to the minor bits that lack consensus - I would similarly ask an editor who was going in the other direction to stop. –xenotalk 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have uploaded my redirect list, so that should help AWB. There are teething problems here, yet. For example trying to maintain ucfirst/lcfist across redirects has lead to imdb => iMDb name. But there are other problems with template names that are bigger than these minor quibbles. Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- I have uploaded my redirect list, so that should help AWB. There are teething problems here, yet. For example trying to maintain ucfirst/lcfist across redirects has lead to imdb => iMDb name. But there are other problems with template names that are bigger than these minor quibbles. Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- Re: "imdb => iMDb name". If we can agree a convention whereby some templates are excluded from the 'keep existing case' rule (perhaps when first word of new template name is all uppercase?) then I can implement it in AWB
. Rjwilmsi 21:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What actually needs to be done now: Need an uninvolved admin
I think, at this point, we've discussed this to death. What I think we need is an uninvolved admin who has maybe a couple of hours to read up on this, and then close the discussion and editing restriction proposals at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010. A number of different remedies have been offered there, and I think a closing admin can judge a suitable consensus on how best to proceed. I don't think it's worth our time talking about this all over again at this point. Especially when the previous discussion hasn't yet been closed. At this point I feel that the discussion and editing restriction proposals are ripe for closure, as that thread is no longer constructive (it appears to have degenerated to edit warring, repetition, and personal comments, rather than actually furthering discussion on the actual issue tat hand, despite this I think there is already enough content there to reach a consensus). If the solution provided by a closing administrator does not work after some time, then there are other venues, such as a RfC/U, which would be more appropriate, since it appears ANI is not helping this issue much. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we need an uninvolved admin to step in here. Subsequent to this thread being posted, Rich made nearly three thousand edits with SmackBot [6] that 1) do not appear to have BAG approval (I found this, but perhaps it should be revisited - approval should not have been granted for spell-checking) and 2) appear to violate the bot policy on spell-checking (based on new information what happened was the operator had set it wrong, as opposed to the bot running amok) and 3) made obviously erroneous edits like this [7]. We have policies and guidelines on automated and assisted editing for a reason, and flagrant disregard for those norms is unacceptable, especially when the result is editors having to manually review thousands of bot edits for errors. –xenotalk 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's a bit of a rabbit out of a hat. "editors having to manually review thousands of bot edits for errors". Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Should I assume the one edit I picked out at random and found to be in error was 1 in 3000? Are you going to check the rest of the edits yourself? (I see you ran over the pages to fix World Series of Poker back to how it should be - Thanks for that). –xenotalk 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I picked up a bunch of other WSOP errors too. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Yes I picked up a bunch of other WSOP errors too. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Should I assume the one edit I picked out at random and found to be in error was 1 in 3000? Are you going to check the rest of the edits yourself? (I see you ran over the pages to fix World Series of Poker back to how it should be - Thanks for that). –xenotalk 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- He also made this edit which does nothing but capitalize a template while tweaking some whitespace. Making disputed edits while they're under discussion at a noticeboard strikes me as inflammatory. –xenotalk 14:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Again human error, some small task I started nearly a week ago, and that item was already fixed - by an unassisted human. (I won't say why the task is taking so long - I will mention that it would have just happened in the good old days prior to 29 Spetember.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- So you had it in auto-save mode? –xenotalk 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Uh.. borrow my deerstalker and meerschaum xeno, they are freshly cleaned. One edit on it's own is very unlikely to be automatic. No I just flipped windows, scanned the diff for errors (which is as automatic for me as reading - look at a printed word and try not to read it) clicked "save" and uttered a choice expletive. Considered reverting myself, but that's a bit nutzoid on a practical level - creating an extra edit to show that you aren't deliberately creating extra edits. Rich Farmbrough, 02:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- Uh.. borrow my deerstalker and meerschaum xeno, they are freshly cleaned. One edit on it's own is very unlikely to be automatic. No I just flipped windows, scanned the diff for errors (which is as automatic for me as reading - look at a printed word and try not to read it) clicked "save" and uttered a choice expletive. Considered reverting myself, but that's a bit nutzoid on a practical level - creating an extra edit to show that you aren't deliberately creating extra edits. Rich Farmbrough, 02:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- So you had it in auto-save mode? –xenotalk 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Again human error, some small task I started nearly a week ago, and that item was already fixed - by an unassisted human. (I won't say why the task is taking so long - I will mention that it would have just happened in the good old days prior to 29 Spetember.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Hmm .. indeed, that last one should not be there. I don't think that I saw any spelling-changes. Most decapitalisations seem OK and proper, but there are some decapitalisations in headers which should actually be capitalised (like the example you gave). Xeno, did you point Rich to these edits, and asked for explanations on the errors and .. useless edits? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but because of obfuscation and handwaving, I've just about exhausted my patience for speaking directly with Rich. (Further reading: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalisation of section titles, Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Probably erroneous approval for a form of spell-checking (SmackBot)) –xenotalk 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Handwaving! I have supplied pretty much the only hard facts , the majority of the argument is fuzzy to an extreme. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Handwaving! I have supplied pretty much the only hard facts , the majority of the argument is fuzzy to an extreme. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Yes, but because of obfuscation and handwaving, I've just about exhausted my patience for speaking directly with Rich. (Further reading: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalisation of section titles, Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Probably erroneous approval for a form of spell-checking (SmackBot)) –xenotalk 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved admin would be good. But if they can get through it in a couple of hours I would be amazed. This debate has eaten hundreds of hours of my time, and every time we get close to closing it down there is a change of venue. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Funny enough, I do think that this edit contains two 'errors' .. one title which is probably correct in the current case was (half) converted to a lower case title, while the next section, which should have been converted, was neglected. Whatever the case, I don't think that this gets over 28 errors (i.e., less than 1%; I still refuse to see the capitalisation/whitespace change as an error, I do define it as 'useless'. And though I also think that of the fuss about it is equally useless: Rich, is there really no way of not doing that, it is certainly not necessary (run regexes on the wikitext with the 'i' parameter and it does not care whether it is upper or lowercase, so why uppercase them all), and it will stop the equally, if not more, unnecessary complaining about it?). I also don't think that this falls under a spelling correction, and I do think that it is important enough to be done by a bot - unfortunately it is too error prone (I would suggest to add the standard ones, and record all the rest with statistics, if there are other common ones which need conversion, add those to the list, but be careful with converting them all).
- All these discussions are not worth this fuss, Smackbot makes by design on every task some errors, some inevitable and some avoidable - others should be repaired (and are generally repaired) before continuing. The errors are minimal, diverse, and IMHO Rich either explains that some errors can not be avoided (e.g. the subst problem), most errors don't break things (they annoy people), and for the rest, a lot of complaints are about useless edits. I understand that the regular errors do give a feeling of 'Smackbot makes a lot of errors', but overall I don't believe that there are really thàt many (and then, some are because the bot is fed a broken page to begin with; or other errors which can not be repaired, still get regurgitated over and over). I also think that many errors were resolved, but also still regurgitated. Now, if we take away the annoyances (I suggest that Rich tries to take most annoyances away, and the annoyed to stop complaining about these things that IMHO do not need this much complaining; it is not worth it), and that future errors are met with 'could you do this different, or ignore these terms' (which I then also expect Rich to follow), then it is now time to move on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I actually don't have a huge problem with honest-to-goodness errors; it's the fixing things that aren't broken that I take issue with. As best as I can tell, the main excuse (other than ILIKEIT) for the template capitalization changes is because it's easier to write a regex that results in capitalization changes. Well, that's not a good excuse, and regex can fairly easily be written to maintain the case (and I know Rich is a wizard when it comes to these things - he helped me with some code for Xenobot Mk V); and in fact, AWB now has built-in redirect bypassing at WP:AWB/TR that won't do the unnecessary capitalization changes. So if Rich just worked within that framework, we can be done with this. –xenotalk 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion
This Gordian knot clearly needs cutting, and I hereby cut it: the restriction proposed above is enacted. In essence, Rich is injuncted from making cosmetic changes which do not have demonstrable community support; this is recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community and as usual enforceable by escalating blocks. I will also clarify that there is no currently demonstrated community consensus on capitalising template calls. In addition, I will say to Rich that the community recognises and appreciates the work you do in using and maintaining a range of powerful tools, but that with power comes responsibility, and you do need to ensure that you err on the side of caution in ensuring that these powerful tools, and your use of them, has sufficiently strong community support. That is all. Rd232 talk 09:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- "This Gordian knot is quickly scissorable! ...." (You may fill in the next line yourselves.) Thank you for reviewing this ungodly mess. Rich Farmbrough, 10:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- Further to this, Rd232 is hereby enjoined from inventing ugly new verbs by back-formation from nouns. --TS 10:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- More cite capitalisation, a few minutes ago? 195.27.52.146 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- SmackBot stopped for now, until Rich has a version running which won't do this. Of course, it's hard to tell what's built in AWB and what's not. But until we've got an explicit "SmackBot is okay to go" from Rich, it's stopped. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- AWB does a number of changes to templates, replacing a redirect to a template with the actual template is done for this list: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. I have asked whether this, implemented about a month ago, actually has consensus, as it seems to go against regular practice of leaving redirects well alone. But anyway, the change of SmackBot (chanbing cite journal to Cite journal) is not included on the above list if template changes, i.e. "The redirects are first letter case insensitive e.g. [citation needed] and [citation needed] are treated as identical." and "The first-letter case of the redirect is kept in the new template name. The template name is first-letter case insensitive e.g. [citation needed] and [citation needed] are the same." If it is done by AWB regardless of this, then AWB needs to be changed. If it is a Smackbot rule, then Smackbot needs to be changed (also e.g. here, changing "dead link" to "Dead link"). This one changes template capitalisation (unreferenced to Unreferenced, Infobox Album to Infobox album) and adds an unwanted defaultsort. The only result of the defaultsort change here is that Republic of China referendum, 2004 now is sorted before Republic of Austria v. Altmann instead of the correct after in Category:2004 in international relations. Before SmackBots change, this sorting was correct. This problem has now been raised repeatedly, but no justification has been given or correction has been made. Fram (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- "AWB does a number of changes to templates, replacing a redirect to a template with the actual template is done for this list: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. I have asked whether this, implemented about a month ago, actually has consensus, as it seems to go against regular practice of leaving redirects well alone.". Yes, That currently does have consensus and is allowed via BAG and the related bot policies BUT the edit must also contain other constructive edits as well (You can't just do solo edits for that content to replace the redirects). Peachey88 (T · C) 07:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- AWB does a number of changes to templates, replacing a redirect to a template with the actual template is done for this list: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. I have asked whether this, implemented about a month ago, actually has consensus, as it seems to go against regular practice of leaving redirects well alone. But anyway, the change of SmackBot (chanbing cite journal to Cite journal) is not included on the above list if template changes, i.e. "The redirects are first letter case insensitive e.g. [citation needed] and [citation needed] are treated as identical." and "The first-letter case of the redirect is kept in the new template name. The template name is first-letter case insensitive e.g. [citation needed] and [citation needed] are the same." If it is done by AWB regardless of this, then AWB needs to be changed. If it is a Smackbot rule, then Smackbot needs to be changed (also e.g. here, changing "dead link" to "Dead link"). This one changes template capitalisation (unreferenced to Unreferenced, Infobox Album to Infobox album) and adds an unwanted defaultsort. The only result of the defaultsort change here is that Republic of China referendum, 2004 now is sorted before Republic of Austria v. Altmann instead of the correct after in Category:2004 in international relations. Before SmackBots change, this sorting was correct. This problem has now been raised repeatedly, but no justification has been given or correction has been made. Fram (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- SmackBot stopped for now, until Rich has a version running which won't do this. Of course, it's hard to tell what's built in AWB and what's not. But until we've got an explicit "SmackBot is okay to go" from Rich, it's stopped. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Infobox Album => Infobox album is not case changing rule it's a redirect removing rule.
Defaultsort fixed. Also fixed (which shows why DEFAULTSORT is used by the community):
- 2004 Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta
- 2004 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel
- 2004 Israel – New Zealand spy scandal
- 2004 Russia–Belarus gas dispute
- 2004 enlargement of the European Union
- 2004 world oil market chronology
to
- 2004 Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta
- 2004 enlargement of the European Union
- 2004 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel
- 2004 Israel – New Zealand spy scandal
- 2004 Russia–Belarus gas dispute
- 2004 world oil market chronology
All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Songs for the Road now sorts thus:
- Something to Believe
- Songs from the Road (Jeff Healey album)
- Songs Inspired by Mulawin
- Soul Donkey
Previously it would have been listed out of order. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
- (I seem to have inadvertently deleted this section, thanks for restoring it Epeefleche). I have started a discussion regarding the sortkey issue at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Sortkey. Your section above where you said you fixed five articles to the same five articles is a bit bizarre, I assume you mean that you added five defaultsorts to these articles, so that e.g. 2004 Russia-Belarus gas dispute now sorts correctly before, umm, no other article starts with the same three words, and only the fourth is capitalized, so a totally useless defaultsort is added... As I said on the discussion on the sortkey, in the limited number of cases where a sort for one category would be better with caps, such a sort can easily be added to the article on a case-by-case basis. Adding unnecessary and harmful (in the case of a move) defaultsorts to all articles, just to solve a few problems, is creating loads of collateral damage for little actual benefit. Fram (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Revive previous proposal
For some reason, the edit restriction proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010#Edit restriction proposal for Rich Farmbrough, which generated a fair amount of support, was abandoned for xeno's proposal, which got hardly any comments. As could perhaps be predicted, the problems not adressed by this second proposal, but adressed in the first one, simply continue.
Rich Farmbrough is now testing a new bot on his main account, which again creates a lot of problems. I notified him at 11:36 yesterday that he created a number of redirects from the mainspace to his userspace[8]. This included a group of 10 redirects created at 11:27 (together with ten more edits the same minute). However, at 21:12, 11 more of these redirects were created, from a total of 19 edits that minute. At 21:18 - 21:19 6 more redirects were created (or recreated). Some of them were deleted by Rich, a number were not though and had to be deleted by other admins.
He also created a number of pages in his user space, and edits them incorrectly at a very high speed. Between 01:28 and 01:30 this morning, he edited 28 articles, putting all 28 articles (biographies of long dead people in his user space) in the cats for living people. Apart from the fact that these cats were obviously wrong, they should also not be used on user space articles. Rich Farmbrough made a few edits afterwards, but apparently didn't notice the errors of his unapproved bot, so I cleaned this up this morning.
Any reason why we don't enact the previous proposal, seeing how he clearly is not interested in taking into account voluntary the points adressed in it, despite the many supports for it, and seeing how his current activities, with dozens of incorrect edits in minutes, are clearly a violation of the bot policy? Fram (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- And he just added tjose 28 articles to those categories again in two minutes time. Can someone please block this unauthorized bot (and yes, that means a block of Rich Farmbroough, tough luck, he violates the bot policy again and again on his main account...)? I am clearly involved so I can't block it... Fram (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Rich seems to have subsequently responded to these concerns in user talk discussion (there seem to have been coding issues), notably using a separate account for bot edits, as bot policy does indeed require. Rd232 talk 14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note: and he is back at his old tricks, or so it seems. He is now creating, with his main acount, in the mainspace, loads of redirects, some potentially useful, some utterly useless, but clearly this happens in some automated manner, even though there is no indication of this in his edit summaries. He e.g. created Communications in Brunei. as a redirect to itself at 08:48 today, deleted it at 08:53, and recreated it as a redirect to Telecommunications in Brunei at 09:24. I deleted it again, as redirects with extra punctuation are an endless list of useless redirects. I also deleted his redirect from Geometric mean, to Geometric mean as implausible, but he restored that one. I have left most of his other redirects alone, but she we really have semi-automated creation of redirects like Autpert Ambrose (Ambroise) to Autpert Ambrose? His rule seems to be that if whatever is bolded in an article is different from the actual title, then a redirect has to be created, no matter if it just a simple error like with Geometric mean,... So far, maily due to errors in his script, 21 of these redirects have had to be deleted the last hour.
- Why do we let him continue running unauthorized bots and useless scripts, when time after time they are filled with errors? Do we really need a bot that creates redirect from Cook Island(s) to Cook Island? Do we really need the creation of more of his extremely short stubs, like Lenon Hoyte, which were kept at AfD because the topic merits an article, but were most uninvolved editors asked him to stop the creation of any more of these in this format? There is just no change of behaviour at all... Fram (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is getting ridiculous. Some of those redirects are good, but many of them are so blatantly poor, the Geometric mean, and Cook Island(s) ones you point out for example, and some of them only seem to change the case, which the software sorts out automatically. I honestly think ArbCom might be the way to go from here. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- In this pattern, I noted this at RF Talk: RF created Redirect pages like Capability Maturity Model (CMM), which is doubling the abbrev, and not a real alternative anyway. Redirect title is copied from the intro bold text. Seven pages thus. -DePiep (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is getting ridiculous. Some of those redirects are good, but many of them are so blatantly poor, the Geometric mean, and Cook Island(s) ones you point out for example, and some of them only seem to change the case, which the software sorts out automatically. I honestly think ArbCom might be the way to go from here. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked Rich to comment on this error. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- And his "response" to this thread, the deletion of a number of redirects, and the posts on his talk page from KingPin and Dirk Beetstra, is to simply recreate things like Transportation In Guatemala. and Communications in Brunei. This means that he has now created the same faulty redirect three times in one day. Fram (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Since I put much effort in the past to delete any redirects that contained punctuation, please inform me if they are any left. The same goes with redirect that contain the abbreviation. I strongly disagree with the creation of this kind of redirects and in the past many of them were deleted via RfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- From User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Redirects ending in punctuation
- and one other, created by the same author
- There may be others, I suppose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Other problem edits since the last time include:
- Delinking March 707 here, even though it is not a date but a model of racecar...
- Recreating the faulty redirect Lucius Caelius to Lactantius, based on his automated script
- Adding a place of birth (or similar) to a Persondata which already has a PLACE of BIRTH, e.g. here, here
- And of course 60 or so of his Smackbot edits that he reverted because they changed "Refimprove" to "Religion Primary"...
- These are just the ones I noticed on spotchecking and browsing the latest 100 edits he made. Fram (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Other problem edits since the last time include:
- Er, what exactly is your point here? There are occasional bot errors, and as far as I can see they get reported to Rich and he handles them. Please elaborate on what, if anything, you expect to happen on the basis of your report above. The recent issue that concerned me was mass creation of redirects, which per xeno's note on Rich's talk page should really have BRFA approval; as far as I can tell Rich has stopped that. Rd232 talk 11:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that every day, he is doing bot stuff that is unauthorized and very buggy, only for other people to correct or even just control it. He is a prolific bot writer, but he doesn's check his contributions, leaving this to other people. An occasional problem, like the March 707 delinking, is in itself not a problem: the amount of problems, day after day after day, with often repeats of previous problems as well, is the issue. He is e.g., despite countless requests to stop this, still changing the capitalization of templates[9][10]. He adds a "date of birth" in the Persondata (year only, for some reason) to an article that already had the DATE OF BIRTH field (empty, but now it has both an empty field, and a partially filled one).[11] No idea why he added the wikify tag here[12]. Fram (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've left Rich a note about the capitalization issue. The persondata issue has already been identified as a bug. There seems to be some buggyness, but I'm not sure how much is normal or what can be done to improve that. Repeat problems and unauthorised bot stuff are not good, but various things have been pointed out and improvements made. Rd232 talk 12:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Redirects noted above now nominated. However, those were supposedly reviewed edits; he states he's not going to do it again, but he would be in a better position to delete them than I. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- We all make mistakes, and we don't catch them all ourselves, that is only logical. But the amount of mistakes he makes, and the scale on which they happen, are far beyond those of other editors, and it looks as if most of them have to be found by others before he eventually corrects his scripts. Considering that not all of these scripts are acknowledged, tested, approved, ... it makes it even harder (e.g. his redirect script that caused a lot of trouble). He has tonight corrected some 400 Smackbot edits where the Persondata was incorrectly edited. It is good that he corrects it, but this is too late, and should have been caught and corrected earlier. And whether his "correction" really gives the desired result? here we now have two parameters in uppercase, and two in lower case: not really the preferred state... Before the Persondata, it was the incorrect Religion template, the redirects, ... His Smackbot edits regularly include, next to pointless edits like this, rather stupid mistakes, like changing (2007 - ) to (born 2007) in this one, where the 2007- actually represents a term for a member in the list Members of the Louisiana House of Representatives. He moves a long standing template template:Monthly clean up category to template:Monthly clean-up category with the edit summary "Hyphenate per user request.", and then makes a series of AWB edits to correct all the links to it. Rather pointless, and a direct violation of his editing restrictions: "This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done)": in edits like this one (24 in total) no "substantive edit" is done, only a bypass of a template redirect he created in the first place. Fram (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've left Rich a note about the capitalization issue. The persondata issue has already been identified as a bug. There seems to be some buggyness, but I'm not sure how much is normal or what can be done to improve that. Repeat problems and unauthorised bot stuff are not good, but various things have been pointed out and improvements made. Rd232 talk 12:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that every day, he is doing bot stuff that is unauthorized and very buggy, only for other people to correct or even just control it. He is a prolific bot writer, but he doesn's check his contributions, leaving this to other people. An occasional problem, like the March 707 delinking, is in itself not a problem: the amount of problems, day after day after day, with often repeats of previous problems as well, is the issue. He is e.g., despite countless requests to stop this, still changing the capitalization of templates[9][10]. He adds a "date of birth" in the Persondata (year only, for some reason) to an article that already had the DATE OF BIRTH field (empty, but now it has both an empty field, and a partially filled one).[11] No idea why he added the wikify tag here[12]. Fram (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Er, what exactly is your point here? There are occasional bot errors, and as far as I can see they get reported to Rich and he handles them. Please elaborate on what, if anything, you expect to happen on the basis of your report above. The recent issue that concerned me was mass creation of redirects, which per xeno's note on Rich's talk page should really have BRFA approval; as far as I can tell Rich has stopped that. Rd232 talk 11:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
(od)The template rename is OK I think, it was a spelling correction and fixing the resulting redirect affected a small number of pages. The Smackbot DEFAULTSORT I've left him a note about. In terms of errors and checking, I don't know what to say; substantive changes should get approval and AFAIK that is happening. Perhaps someone more familiar with hands-on bot operation could say something about the viability of better testing. Rd232 talk 09:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- How was it okay? How was it not a violation of the editing restrictions? The edits were purely cosmetic, the template works equally well as a redirect than it does directly. The editing restrictions were not about number of pages (this were in the proposal that was not accepted for some reason, while the much less supported current restrictions were). That a violation of editing restrictions in itself doesn't break anything has never been a reason to ignore them, just like e.g. a violation of a block or ban to make as such correct edits isn't acceptable either. Fram (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note that he since has done 25 more of these edits... Fram (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well I thought it was outside the spirit of the editing restriction in terms of reflecting a non-controversial template renaming; and besides it affects only Wikipedia maintenance category pages. However I also thought it was just a handful of pages but in fact it will be a lot, which makes it more of an issue. Rd232 talk 11:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note that he since has done 25 more of these edits... Fram (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Huge backlog of tagged unsourced biographies of living persons
Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unsourced biographies of living persons to save space on the WP:AN page and to centralize discussion.Please do not timestamp until this reaches the top of the page. –MuZemike
I am tired of you people giving me nightmares
I am tired of you people giving me nightmares. I want to disappear. you people say you have no problem with this, but you are liars. I am tired of all of you lying to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentleyroastbeef (talk • contribs) 06:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- ... and this is of course your only post using this username. Please, WP:DISAPPEAR then. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doc Quintana. –MuZemike 16:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- For anyone unclear on this:
- Right to vanish and continued editing with sockpuppet accounts are mutually exclusive activities. You did not vanish if you are sockpuppeting, and if you are found out it is your own fault and you should not have done that in the first place. Coming here to complain afterwards, with another sock, is most certainly not going to help. That is pretty much the definition of "unclear on the concept".
- If you want to go away from Wikipedia, just stop editing. That works extremely well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Re-design for the fringe theory noticeboard
I've cut down in the excessive information that really should be on the guideline page and redesigned it to make it more concise and to the point. The colors are not final. I'll provide a central link to the archives later on, but the overall design is complete. The new design may be found at User:Netalarm/Fringe lab, but please note that this is not available for testing, as there are no templates involved. Please discuss on the main talk page of the fringe theories noticeboard. Netalarmtalk 01:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#New_design That is the talk page discussion. Thanks for the pointer! Protonk (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
TorNodeBot
Hello all, I wanted to raise a note to indicate that an admin bot I developed a while ago, TorNodeBot is up for approval again. This bot was previously approved for trial but then withdrawn by me as the need for it seemed to go away. I'm reopening the approval in response to the recent abuse of Tor that is not being picked up by the TorBlock extension. Any community input is most appreciated. The discussion for approval is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TorNodeBot 2. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Death by sub-paging
- Comment—I think that it should probably have been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Death by sub-paging... :) ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 17:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
HELP HELP i can not get wiki to work in a font that i can read please can any one help
Help undeleting Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association
I closed This DRV as overturn, but Wikipedia is not letting me undelete the revisions of Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association. Every time I try, my browser takes forever before I get an error message giving the default notice that the Wikimedia servers haven't responded or something like that. I suspected that this has something to do with the large number of deleted revisions, but I thought that only had to do with deleting (to prevent large, important articles from being deleted), and not from undeleting. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, only 5000 revisions may be deleted at a time. Maybe this is also true for undeleting. Or maybe I'm just plain wrong. Maybe you could try undeleting a few revisions at a time? Otherwise, I think we have to ask a steward to do it. Airplaneman ✈ 22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm getting the same error message when trying to load the deleted revisions (it took 5 minutes just to make that appear). Airplaneman ✈ 22:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it wouldn't let me get to the stage of selecting individual revisions either. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm getting the same error message when trying to load the deleted revisions (it took 5 minutes just to make that appear). Airplaneman ✈ 22:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm suprised the deleting admin managed to delete it in the first place (unles a dev did it); that page had 37.753 revisions(!) Now, when you click 'Undelete', it has to enumerate all 37.753 revisions just to build the revision list... Defenitely need a dev for that. — Edokter • Talk • 22:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The server is having problems in this case because it's trying to list all the deleted revisions and the resulting page is too long. I believe that Twinkle can deal with these cases, but I've just installed it and I can't figure out how to use it to undelete pages. Graham87 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive141#Grawp page move undo problem. I'll ping the users involved in that thread in a couple of minutes. Graham87 01:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- SQL has retired and Splarka is only semi-active. I've sent a message to Splarka and one to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle about this problem. If all else fails, we might need the help of a sysadmin. Graham87 01:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Computer says no. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Backlog at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
We can use some help over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations in clearing up some of the cases there that are listed which have been sitting there for a while. Quite a few of them have already had a CheckUser look at them (if necessary, others do not) and need a regular admin to make a call as to what action is to be taken. The same goes with the other cases which do not need a CheckUser; admins need to go through and make those calls. If there are any questions, let an SPI clerk or a CheckUser (such as myself) know, and we can try and help whenever we can. –MuZemike 06:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you expand as to what is required of Administrators at that page and/or the closure procedures? Nakon 07:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Really, for anything not listed as requiring a checkuser (anything that says "Open" at the top), any uninvolved admin can come in and act upon the report. Simply make a decision based off the presented evidence regarding whether or not WP:SOCK is being violated, apply blocks as necessary, leave a note, and then mark the case as closed by changing {{SPI case status}} to {{SPI case status|closed}}. Don't really worry about screwing anything up; clerks are constantly monitoring those pages to make sure all the technical details are in order. Administrators really only need to worry about the "make decision, place block" part. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doing... Nakon 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken care of the ones that have had a CU response. There are at least 18 reports open that require a CU. Nakon 07:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the cases that just say open, those never need a CU (or if they do, the status changes), infact open means practically that admins need to deal with unless there is no reason to block. You can look to my caselist page which has a list of open cases and is updated every 15 min by a bot, and only the blue and yellow ones need a Checkuser or SPI clerk to deal with. That ugly brown/pink or what ever it is is the open ones which admins can handle easily. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken care of the ones that have had a CU response. There are at least 18 reports open that require a CU. Nakon 07:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doing... Nakon 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Really, for anything not listed as requiring a checkuser (anything that says "Open" at the top), any uninvolved admin can come in and act upon the report. Simply make a decision based off the presented evidence regarding whether or not WP:SOCK is being violated, apply blocks as necessary, leave a note, and then mark the case as closed by changing {{SPI case status}} to {{SPI case status|closed}}. Don't really worry about screwing anything up; clerks are constantly monitoring those pages to make sure all the technical details are in order. Administrators really only need to worry about the "make decision, place block" part. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Appeal by Triton Rocker
- Appealing user
- Triton Rocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction being appealed
- One year block
- Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction
- Looie496 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Looie496 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Notification of that editor
- [13]
The following was submitted as part of an unblock request at User talk:Triton Rocker#Ublock Request II. Because the block was made in application of community sanctions, WP:GS/BI, I am referring this request to the community as an appeal against community sanctions. This is a procedural referral and I have no opinion about the merits of the block or the request. Sandstein 12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- [Complaints about the alleged bias of the previous unblock reviewer omitted] "Therefore, my point remains, the non-involved editors of good faith saw the length of block for the perfectly civil single talk page edit I made [14] as being excessive I believe they were correct and that Looie496's, a new admin with only a couple of week's experience, interpretation of my words was over-enthusiastic.
- Please note that the length of this ban was determined by a previous one month block based again on a single edit to a talk page, here [15] --- again, in itself, perfectly formal and polite enough.
- Cailil construed a report is here: [16] using prejudicial accusations relating to an outstanding checkuser report, here [17] which was later overturned as "conclusively unrelated".
- I requested that such discussion of Cailil accusation was delayed until the checkuser findings were delivered. That polite request was ignored. I was never given a fair chance to defend myself against it as I was blocked from editing even my talk page at the time. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)"
- I checked TR's last post at BISE. In that post, TR comments on another editor (Bjmullan) & his editorial motives. The sanction TR was/is under forbade him to do so. Alleged political motives, conspiracies etc, are irrelevant & having a siege mentality approach is un-productive. Until TR recognizes that he got himself blocked? his appeals won't be successful. GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with GoodDay. Regardless of Triton Rocker perceiving other editors' editing to be biased/problematic/whatever there are dispute resolution procedures in place for dealing with that. He hasn't attempted to use any of those, and just keeps going on about other editors. Multiple blocks haven't prevented that, and his appeal really doesn't address the reasons behind his block. There's a definite siege mentality with his refusal to listen to outside input, and unless he is willing to listen and agree specific unblock conditions there's no way I could support his unblock. 2 lines of K303 14:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Is Triton Rocker saying that the reasons for the present block were not valid? I'm not even sure I quite understand the appeal here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment TR's restrictions are in two parts. 1)Imposed by Black Kite - a topic ban from editting in the article space in relation to the British Isles naming topic[18]. 2)Imposed by the community as proposed by me - civility parole[19].
TR's sanctions were imposed[20] and reviewed by the community on WP:ANI[21][22] (twice) and on WP:AN[23]. Users other than TR (LevenBoy and LemonMonday) who are single purpose accounts that edit in this area raised two of these re-reviews for TR. This matter has been discussed and has community approval.
TR's way back is to accept site policy, his restriction, and start editting accordingly. I already cautioned LemonMonday about "asking the other parent" in this regard and I believe TR should be warned accordingly too--Cailil talk 14:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, TR is still under a civility restriction even if blocked. This comments are a personal attack[24][25], they also cast aspersions about me and assume bad faith, thus I request an uninvolved sysop review this please--Cailil talk 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Triton Rocker continues to blame others for getting him into the position he finds himself. Even today he repeated (in bold) that I had gone against sanctions when I edited at BSkyB. I will repeat here again so that he may understand, I am under NO sanctions at BISE. In addition he considers that my edit was wrong even though it is supported by references. Triton Rocker seem only to see in one colour and concentrates on the supposed motives of others rather than looking at his own. Since the block was imposed he has done nothing that makes me believe he has changed ways or even to consider that what he did was wrong. Bjmullan (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)