Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) →Hypothetical question about refactoring on your own talk page: fuck it, if we can't discuss it as an idea unto itself I don't care |
Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
== Hypothetical question about refactoring on your own talk page == |
== Hypothetical question about refactoring on your own talk page == |
||
{{discussion top}} |
|||
*'''Withdrawn''' I wanted to have a hypothetical discussion and avoid personalizing it, that has been horribly derailed and no purpose can be served by continuing this conversation. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Although I am referring to specific incidents here I would prefer to keep this purely hypothetical. Even if you dig and check and see who the other two users are, let's pretend this is a purely hypothetical question and the exact identities of the other two users are not important. Quite some time ago I had someone posting on my talk that I did not want to talk to any further. I replaced their remarks with [[:File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg]], but left their signature attached. This went back and forth a few times, and we wound up at ANI, where there was a consensus that removing it was fine, but replacing it with a graphic and leaving the sig was not. I saw the logic of that, as such an action could serve to inflame the situation and certainly wouldn't help. Fast forward to the last few months. A particular problematic user and I have had occasion to interact a few times. If this person does not like what I have said they do more or less the same thing, replacing my remarks with disparaging statements about me, but leaving my signature intact as though I want my name attached to insults directed at me. I don't care if they remove my remarks entirely. I don't care if I am banished from their talk page (which they never explicitly stated until recently) but I do care that my remarks are refactored so as to insult me and my sig is left attached to them. I have tried to simply remove my remarks altogether and have been reverted. Now, it's all well and good to say it is their talk page and they can have what they want on it. That's fine, but I don't believe they should be refactoring my remarks and leaving my sig on them. Thoughts? [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
Although I am referring to specific incidents here I would prefer to keep this purely hypothetical. Even if you dig and check and see who the other two users are, let's pretend this is a purely hypothetical question and the exact identities of the other two users are not important. Quite some time ago I had someone posting on my talk that I did not want to talk to any further. I replaced their remarks with [[:File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg]], but left their signature attached. This went back and forth a few times, and we wound up at ANI, where there was a consensus that removing it was fine, but replacing it with a graphic and leaving the sig was not. I saw the logic of that, as such an action could serve to inflame the situation and certainly wouldn't help. Fast forward to the last few months. A particular problematic user and I have had occasion to interact a few times. If this person does not like what I have said they do more or less the same thing, replacing my remarks with disparaging statements about me, but leaving my signature intact as though I want my name attached to insults directed at me. I don't care if they remove my remarks entirely. I don't care if I am banished from their talk page (which they never explicitly stated until recently) but I do care that my remarks are refactored so as to insult me and my sig is left attached to them. I have tried to simply remove my remarks altogether and have been reverted. Now, it's all well and good to say it is their talk page and they can have what they want on it. That's fine, but I don't believe they should be refactoring my remarks and leaving my sig on them. Thoughts? [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
*Removing or refactoring comments (archiving, shrinking, collapsing) is fine, but altering the comments is against policy; replacing the comment minus the sig with anything else is altering the comment and should be reverted as altering another user's comments. <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">'''[[User:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch</font></font>]]''' [[User talk:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]</font>]]</span> 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
*Removing or refactoring comments (archiving, shrinking, collapsing) is fine, but altering the comments is against policy; replacing the comment minus the sig with anything else is altering the comment and should be reverted as altering another user's comments. <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">'''[[User:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch</font></font>]]''' [[User talk:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]</font>]]</span> 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:56, 29 December 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
|
Its become apparent that ideological editing has, in some cases, distorted our coverage of Scientology related articles. I'm particularly concerned about BLPs and have started a mini-project to review. Help wanted; pay (as ever) is negotiable.--Scott Mac 00:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't canvass on WR, especially not in a thread devoted to attacking a Wikipedia editor who is known for working on Scientology articles as the participants there are not likely to be neutral. See WP:CANVASS. Will Beback talk 01:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Too late...[1] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I fail to see how WP:CANVASS applies to a Wikiproject invitation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CANVASS has absolutely nothing to do with a notification/request about a specific Wikiproject invitation. SilverserenC 03:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- If the project can be interpreted as an attack on a specific user, that might apply, as might other policy. A specific user was identified as part of the wider discussion that lead up to this, in off-wiki emails on (wikien-l, I think, but haven't checked).
- I don't know that it's actually a problem, but there's a credible cause to ask the question as to whether it's a problem, based on the prior discussion. AGF covers not assuming that it is in fact an attack before looking at it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Too late...[1] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CANVASS applies to all Wikipedia discussions, and warns against "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)." Since it was posted in a thread that was very critical of an editor of Scientology articles, the other posters there had known opinions on his work. If Scott had created a fresh thread to announce the campaign, then that would have been different. There are plenty of venues on Wikipedia to notify interested users appropriately. Will Beback talk 05:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Editors with agendas have been distorting Scientology related BLPs and violating or being careless with policy for their own reasons. I want editors whose opinions on that are known and negative. We need to get this right. Will, I'm sorry, but you've got poor form on BLPs. There seems to be a mood that says we can go easy on negative material when we don't like the person.--Scott Mac 13:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's no need for off-Wiki canvassing. WR is not a place known for respecting living people. Will Beback talk 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Places can't have respect, people can. Perhaps you might help ensure we don't mistreat BLP subjects rather than rules-lawyering over a post I made that harms no one, and may help draw attention to a real problem.--Scott Mac 14:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- But you feel it's appropriate to put this kind of canvassing on a site that is notorious for its mistreatment of living Wikipedia editors? Corvus cornixtalk 21:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed like we are oh so nice to each other on wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nicer here than there. It's a cesspool. Will Beback talk 17:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed like we are oh so nice to each other on wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- But you feel it's appropriate to put this kind of canvassing on a site that is notorious for its mistreatment of living Wikipedia editors? Corvus cornixtalk 21:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Places can't have respect, people can. Perhaps you might help ensure we don't mistreat BLP subjects rather than rules-lawyering over a post I made that harms no one, and may help draw attention to a real problem.--Scott Mac 14:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's no need for off-Wiki canvassing. WR is not a place known for respecting living people. Will Beback talk 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Editors with agendas have been distorting Scientology related BLPs and violating or being careless with policy for their own reasons. I want editors whose opinions on that are known and negative. We need to get this right. Will, I'm sorry, but you've got poor form on BLPs. There seems to be a mood that says we can go easy on negative material when we don't like the person.--Scott Mac 13:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
IANAAdmin , but I want to put down two of my persistent concerns. 1) In general WR canvassing has been and is a real problem. It used to be commonplace in BLP deletion discussions, for example. So far I've seen no action taken about that 2)There is also the real problem that Scott Mac ignores or insults everyone who doesn't share his radical view of BLP treatment (not BLP policy because he is beginning to step way beyond policy, as a recent Arbcom clarification request by Will Beback can reveal). The problem is that both Arbcom and AN/I use to dodge the issue, probably because Scott Mac's work is overall positive (I have no problem recognizing that) and because no one wants to be witch-hunted as "weak on BLP" in the current "political climate" of WP. If anyone more skilled than me at this has ideas on how to tackle these two issues, I'd be delighted. --Cyclopiatalk 18:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bad speedy deletions can be reversed after discussion, by consensus at WP:DRV. Really bad speedy deletions, which are routinely reversed, and persist following a request for comment, can result in desysopping of the administrator performing them. But I've seen no evidence of any misuse of the deletion tool by Scott meriting such a response. Canvassing for deletion discussions and wikiproject participation on Wikipedia Review, a site characterized by its toleration and proliferation of attacks on Wikipedia editors, hyper-deletionism with respect to BLPs, and generalized trolling, is another matter. Users who violate Wikipedia:Canvassing can be blocked, and administrators like Scott are no exception. This is one case in which blocking may be intended as punitive, since there is no direct way to inhibit users' off-wiki activities, even when they are soliciting on-wiki disruption. Chester Markel (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see any reason to canvass on WR except to get input from banned users who can't post here. That's not necessarily a bad thing per se but he needs to be above-board about disclosing any such input, and Scott has been resistant or evasive when asked about this.[2] Scott means well but he has a point of view about this || wide when it comes to any concerns about the methods he uses to achieve his laudable goals. It's unfortunate because the stridency risks alienating those whom we might otherwise recruit to cleaning up the BLP cesspool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Urgent help needed for SfD backlog
Currently, at WP:SFD, we have a backlog going all the way back to November 10 (A month and a half ago), together with an open discussion from October 8th (2&nbap;1/2 months ago!). Can some admins please help deal with this? As far as I can tell, I'm the only one to close any of these discussions recently, and there are several where I have participated here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Languishing AfDs
Time to earn you pay. The following five AfDs have been languishing since December 14, 2010 with little input. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Foreman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microgiving, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Electronics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Mayhem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Action Team. Three comments in each of these should be enough for an admin to close them. Won't you please help? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- They've already been re-listed. You'll have to await discussions post relisting. And one of them was listed only recently despite having been filed earlier as the filing editor had missed out on the listing (due to script malfunction). So no worries as of now. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for the unclear request. I am not asking for an admin to close the discussions. I'm asking editors to add to the discussion. Since regular editors don't seem interested, I'm hoping that a few admins (e.g., at least 3) will add their thoughts to each discussion. With enough discussion, these languishing AfD's can be closed, rather than re-listed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way of finding out when an account was created?
This morning Dralansun (talk · contribs) spammed a message to user and article talk pages, templates, articles, project pages, etc. I think they've been cleaned up but what puzzles me is his creating talk pages for users who have never edited, ie Anjneya Varshney (talk · contribs), AjayKerala (talk · contribs) and Anshu Bora (talk · contribs). How would he have found these? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- New users log; or, noting the usernames, quite likely Special:ListUsers. Rd232 talk 11:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Those three accounts do not exist in any fashion. Also, if you click the user page, you should see "User account "[Insert name here]" is not registered. If you wish to use "[Insert name here]" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. He may have used Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Members as a source for the names, which raises the question of why they are there, see [3], [4] - this one seems to have been a spelling mistake by the editor [5].
- What do we do? Delete the ones that don't exist, correct the spelling of the one at the project (and there seems to be at least one other name there with no contributions).? Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy criterion U2 permits the deletion of any and all userpages of nonexistent users. This doesn't apply to redirects in the old userspace of users who have been renamed (e.g. we don't delete User talk:Nenarssue), but it should be ruthlessly applied for pages in the userspace of users that have never existed. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I found User:Anshu.bora in the English WP. This user also seems to have an account on commons, The first one appears to be a Phd in India witt an account in WikiEducator as User:Pragati varshney (may not be the same person though I admit), the second refers to Kerala which is a city in India. Not sure if this helps but thought I would provide anyway. Its possible they just did a google scape of Wiki users in India if I have to make a guess. --Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is something weird there. Some entries are non-existent accounts added by other editors, with details about their interests. Some are real accounts where their only edit is to add themselves to the project, which doesn't make sense. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- The main account seems to be used only for disruptions so maybe it too should be blocked. Just a suggestion after looking at what I was able to see. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think that would be a good idea to block the three red linked user accounts as well as the User:Anshu.bora I brought up. It hasn't been used in over a year anyway so its doubtful it will be missed. --Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- The main account seems to be used only for disruptions so maybe it too should be blocked. Just a suggestion after looking at what I was able to see. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is something weird there. Some entries are non-existent accounts added by other editors, with details about their interests. Some are real accounts where their only edit is to add themselves to the project, which doesn't make sense. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I found User:Anshu.bora in the English WP. This user also seems to have an account on commons, The first one appears to be a Phd in India witt an account in WikiEducator as User:Pragati varshney (may not be the same person though I admit), the second refers to Kerala which is a city in India. Not sure if this helps but thought I would provide anyway. Its possible they just did a google scape of Wiki users in India if I have to make a guess. --Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy criterion U2 permits the deletion of any and all userpages of nonexistent users. This doesn't apply to redirects in the old userspace of users who have been renamed (e.g. we don't delete User talk:Nenarssue), but it should be ruthlessly applied for pages in the userspace of users that have never existed. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't know if this is related, but the user Wagino 20100516 has established a talk page for my account on the Indonesian(!) WP. FYI, I posted this on the Indonesian embassy page:
- Hi! It seems w:id:Pengguna:Wagino 20100516 has established a talk page for my account w:id:Pembicaraan Pengguna:Asav, which is a global acoount. I don't understand the puropse of this, and ask you to remove it and block that user from establishing talk pages for other users. Also see this page, please. Thank you in advance! Asav (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Changing another editor's rationale for deletion nomination
Joe Sioufi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:JzG ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I'd like some clarification as to whether it's acceptable for one editor (in this case an admin) to change the rationale of another editor's nomination of an article (Sioufi) for deletion. In this instance, JzG has changed it twice (first time and second time), apparently based on his belief that the rationale itself violates WP:BLP. Frankly, I don't get it and have said so on my own Talk page here. As I stated, if an editor nominates an article for deletion, the editor has to state a "concern". The idea then is to examine/discuss whether that concern is justified. If the concern is that the article is an autobiography but it turns out the concern is invalid, merely the statement of the concern doesn't violate WP:BLP. In a similar vein, as I also stated, I may suspect a potential copyright violation in requesting deletion of an image file. That doesn't mean I've libeled (I don't know that libel is what JzG is concerned about) someone by raising the issue. To me, changing another editor's rationale is similar to changing another editor's comments on a Talk page or in a forum. Unless the comments are egregious and therefore fall under some exception, which, in my view, isn't the case here, it violates policy to change the comments. Also, if the answer to this question differs based on whether the editor making the change is an admin or not, please explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Have you spoken to JzG about this beyond the one comment on your talk page? I can't see anything that indicates that you have.
In any case, I hardly think this is a matter of complaint. JzG, likely though not certainly acting on an OTRS ticket, changed the deletion rationale to something that would be less offensive to the subject if they saw it. It still gets the same point across, and looks far more professional this way. NW (Talk) 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted his first change, and I participated in the discussion on the original nominator's page here. Also, just so it's clear, my coming here was not to "complain" but to seek clarification. The end result may be that I'm wrong, or that JzG is wrong, or that there is no clear answer. I'm just seeking to understand how this works for the future. I don't lightly revert an admin's change, even though some admins tell me that I should treat them the same as I do any other editor. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't nominate the article for deletion. You added Template:Proposed deletion, which could result in easily reversible deletion of the article after seven days. JzG's changes strengthened the basis for the prod. Your post was in article space, so perhaps it was fair game for revision. JzG probably should have just added his own comments instead of changing yours. Why not just follow the instructions as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion to nominate the article for deletion? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't do anything. Another editor proposed the article for deletion. I simply objected to JzG's changing that editor's rationale. Forgive me if I'm using the wrong terminology (nominated vs. proposed), but some of the deletion methods at Wikipedia are confusing (to me).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- User:Soundvisions1 posted in the prod "non-notable autobiography" and that appeared in a now deleted article. JzG changed that posting to read "Article which fails to adequately establish the importance of the subject by reference to reliable independent sources". JzG's did not change that editor's rationale. Take a look at posted prod templated Category:Proposed_deletion. None of them list the name of the prod template poster. The rational listed wasn't Soundvisions1 rational (in fact, Soundvisions1 didn't and could not sign the post). It was Wikipedia's rational. Because prod templates appear within article space, their parameter text can be edited by anyone, just as text in the rest of the article can be edited by anyone. The term "autobiography" is fairly offensive as it asserts in violation of that every edit to that article was written by the person who was the subject of the article. There was no truth to that. In addition, it implies potential violation by that person of Wikipedia's policies, in violation of WP:BLP. JzG did not need an WP:OTRS to make the change - any could have made the change. It would have been acceptable for a non-admin to make the same change Guy made. The change based on the WP:OTRS ticket means that you need justification from OTRS to revert back. It would not be acceptable for anyone other than an OTRS worker to change Guy's post since it was originally based on an OTRS ticket. If you want to follow up, I added a thread to Template talk:Proposed deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I refactored the deletion request rationale to be consistent with WP:BLP, and I told the user why I had done it. I have no idea why Bbb23 is choosing to make a big deal of this. Anybody with WP:OTRS access can also check Ticket:2010122310018843. WP:BLP applies in all parts of the encyclopaedia but especially to mainspace biographies, accusing people of autobiography when they dispute it is both rude and unnecessary, the rationale as I left it sdays the same thing but in a less polemical tone. I could have just deleted the article, of course, but I chose to leave that to someone else. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have access to OTRS. I don't agree with JzG that I'm making a "big deal" out of this. If I gain a deeper understanding of how Wikipedia works (which may seem immediately apparent to admins and other more experienced editors, but not to me), that helps me become a better editor and less likely to take actions that are not in keeping with policy or practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have looked at the OTRS ticket and I can't see that Giy has done anything wrong amending the prod tag to something morr informative that would be less offensive to the subject of the article were they to view it. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Guy rewrote the rationale to reduce offence to the subject, while keeping the reasoning the same. This is absolutely fine. Nothing more needs to be said here. Trebor (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have access to OTRS. I don't agree with JzG that I'm making a "big deal" out of this. If I gain a deeper understanding of how Wikipedia works (which may seem immediately apparent to admins and other more experienced editors, but not to me), that helps me become a better editor and less likely to take actions that are not in keeping with policy or practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
One last question, and I'm done. Would it be acceptable for a non-admin to make the same change Guy made?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Admins aren't anything special; if it's acceptable for an admin, it's acceptable for any editor. In this case, changing the PROD rationale isn't exactly modifying another user's rationale (note that the rationale is not signed by the user, for example), it's closer to disagreeing with the PROD rationale and adding their own rationale instead; there's nothing wrong with that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- By the way to answer you question about venue, for questions like this in future you may wish to use the help desk if you're unsure about whether or not it's permitted by policy. If you have read the relevant policy and believe it is not permitted, you should discuss it with the user, and take it to WP:ANI if that discussion doesn't lead anywhere useful and you believe a policy violation has taken place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Crusade initiated?
I have come across Rkononenko talk who appears to be on a crusade to right wrongs in reference to Ukrainian connections on Wikipedia. These changes are dramatic, arbitary and never explained, sourced or verified. See: list of previous contacts with other editors. The editor appears particularly concerned about spellings and useage:
- warning about deliberate errors introduced,
- major changes to article regarding loan words from Ukrainian
- change to name of person Bzuk (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
- If you have already tried to discuss this with the user, I think you're looking for dispute resolution if he chooses to communicate and ANI if he does not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Need help with a tricky SPI, need second opinions regarding how to proceed.
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. This is not actually DavidYork71, but there are still unresolved issues that need additional admin input. I'd like to know how to proceed. Thanks for your attention. --Jayron32 21:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the current solution (indef on all) is fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've posted a question on the SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- We don't know who it actually is. Checkuser cannot distinguish with 100% certainty between two users. Thank you for your report. The behavioral evidence quite strongly points to mischief, whether or not they are the same, so I've blocked the accounts. Jehochman Talk 09:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with block, whoever it is. Aggressive attempt to force something libelous and tabloid-sourced into an article on a recently-deceased person (which is, by the way, still covered by BLP); multiple accounts; whether or not it's the same person, IMO it's not someone we want here. Antandrus (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Unearned barnstars, etc
- About 15:00 on 28 December 2010 User:ModernWarfare14 copied User:Anthony Appleyard and User talk:Anthony Appleyard onto User:ModernWarfare14 and User talk:ModernWarfare14, and along with it several of my barnstars which he did not earn. He left this message: "== What a Surprise == I Am Just Like You Check Out My Talk And Page (Michael Robertson (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC))" on my talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have deleted from User:ModernWarfare14 the copied barnstars and the "I am an admin" matter. I left a note in the end of User talk:ModernWarfare14. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Why not block it and get it over with before some real damage is done. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposal relating to page moves
Hello. I'm here to post a link to a discussion over at Requested Moves. Those of us discussing there have, I believe, said everything we've got to say, and we haven't reached consensus (i.e., I'm not convinced). I'd love to see more input from a wider cross-section of Wikipedians. Thanks in advance for any comments.
By the way, at the top of this page, there are extensive lists of what this page is not for, and no information about what it is for. It's here now, on the edit screen, but not on the page itself. Or am I just not seeing it? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Unearned barnstars redux
Users claiming unearned barnstars rub me the wrong way. It is silly, but nonetheless I believe we should warn users when spotted, and crack down when needed. A recent silly case in point: User:Htmlvb claims to have Centijimbos. No big deal except the user has no followers and the "rules" are no less than 30 watchers to claim them. I reverted the claim and the user proceeded to repost it. Before I revert again and start watching the user for possible 3RR and whatnot, the previous topic reminded me to ask and see the consensus, or should I just not bother (it's as harmless as claiming bogus barnstars, or isn't it?) -- Alexf(talk) 21:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Generally users are allowed to make any wild claims they want, including giving themselves 'awards' such as barnstars, as long as they do not claim to have some permission they do not (i.e. you can't claim to be a bureaucrat if you are not). Prodego talk 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This does seem a bit silly to take to AN; the page itself is only kept as humour; if they add themselves incorrectly, just remove them or move them down the list as appropriate. I'm sure we must have better things to do than worry about who's claiming they have how many centijimbos. Incidentally, I have 2.5 centijimbos ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen this sort of thing before. It's disingenuous and stupid but it usually doesn't fool anybody. There are no actual policies for barnstars and such so there is no real recourse if someone is so desperate for positive reinforcement that they award them to themselves. It's quite pathetic but not sanctionable, and I wouldn't recommend edit warring over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hypothetical question about refactoring on your own talk page
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Withdrawn I wanted to have a hypothetical discussion and avoid personalizing it, that has been horribly derailed and no purpose can be served by continuing this conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I am referring to specific incidents here I would prefer to keep this purely hypothetical. Even if you dig and check and see who the other two users are, let's pretend this is a purely hypothetical question and the exact identities of the other two users are not important. Quite some time ago I had someone posting on my talk that I did not want to talk to any further. I replaced their remarks with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg, but left their signature attached. This went back and forth a few times, and we wound up at ANI, where there was a consensus that removing it was fine, but replacing it with a graphic and leaving the sig was not. I saw the logic of that, as such an action could serve to inflame the situation and certainly wouldn't help. Fast forward to the last few months. A particular problematic user and I have had occasion to interact a few times. If this person does not like what I have said they do more or less the same thing, replacing my remarks with disparaging statements about me, but leaving my signature intact as though I want my name attached to insults directed at me. I don't care if they remove my remarks entirely. I don't care if I am banished from their talk page (which they never explicitly stated until recently) but I do care that my remarks are refactored so as to insult me and my sig is left attached to them. I have tried to simply remove my remarks altogether and have been reverted. Now, it's all well and good to say it is their talk page and they can have what they want on it. That's fine, but I don't believe they should be refactoring my remarks and leaving my sig on them. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Removing or refactoring comments (archiving, shrinking, collapsing) is fine, but altering the comments is against policy; replacing the comment minus the sig with anything else is altering the comment and should be reverted as altering another user's comments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- If the signature is removed, of course, all that's really been done is the comment has been removed (in its entirety), and the user's own comment left in its place; which is fine per WP:OWNTALK. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Second paragraph, first sentence (including italicised for emphasis comment regarding userpages) of WP:TPOC - you can remove another editors comments, but you may not amend them to change the meaning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not be coy here (for which you can read "context is everything" if you prefer). This is all part of Beeblebrox's recurrent attempts to provoke an editor he derides as "poisonous, nasty, (and) condescending". It is interesting to reflect on Beeblebrox's use of such language toward others as compared with his sensitivity to insult expressed above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- In any case, and remembering that the issue is whether one's posts may be altered or changed to effect a different impression than one intended, the result is clear. It is improper to alter anyone's posts in any manner designed to make the post different in meaning or tone. Colons are ok. Anything else is likely wrong. Collect (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whilst inapplicable in this particular case, that is not generally true. They are rare and unusual, but there are times when one refactors to change tone. Refactoring to leave the spirit of an argument whilst removing egregiously problematic BLP violating material is one such. (I'm probably channelling Kim Bruning here. Next thing you know, I'll be using "anti-wiki".) The idea that it's 100% improper to refactor talk pages is something that has accrued by garbled repetition of the real rule, which is that it shouldn't be done unless the requirement to protect the encyclopaedia and its writing outweighs the discourtesy of making people appear to have written that which they did not. For further edification on this subject, go and read Wikipedia:Refactor personal attacks, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, and the associated discussions, polls, and — yes — ArbCom cases. The idea of refactoring was not resoundingly and overwhelmingly rejected; but rather it was realized that a rule about refactoring could be gamed by the immature. Indeed, it is the idea that once written by someone something is set entirely in stone and immutable in 100% of circumstances that is the anti-wiki idea. There it is. Next thing you know I'll be … erm … writing in small fonts. Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Refactoring is not "amending or changing" the meaning of the message - it is noting that a part is problematic; removing the words "fascist worshipping scum" from a complaint about some editors problematic contributions to an article like racial discrimination does not change the context of the complaint - amending "problematic" to "justifiable" is, as is replacing the entire complaint with a box noting "nigger lover whining again" or even "yada yada yada". Parts of a comment that are not policy complaint may indeed be removed or redacted, but the meaning of the comment may not be changed in doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whilst inapplicable in this particular case, that is not generally true. They are rare and unusual, but there are times when one refactors to change tone. Refactoring to leave the spirit of an argument whilst removing egregiously problematic BLP violating material is one such. (I'm probably channelling Kim Bruning here. Next thing you know, I'll be using "anti-wiki".) The idea that it's 100% improper to refactor talk pages is something that has accrued by garbled repetition of the real rule, which is that it shouldn't be done unless the requirement to protect the encyclopaedia and its writing outweighs the discourtesy of making people appear to have written that which they did not. For further edification on this subject, go and read Wikipedia:Refactor personal attacks, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, and the associated discussions, polls, and — yes — ArbCom cases. The idea of refactoring was not resoundingly and overwhelmingly rejected; but rather it was realized that a rule about refactoring could be gamed by the immature. Indeed, it is the idea that once written by someone something is set entirely in stone and immutable in 100% of circumstances that is the anti-wiki idea. There it is. Next thing you know I'll be … erm … writing in small fonts. Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- In any case, and remembering that the issue is whether one's posts may be altered or changed to effect a different impression than one intended, the result is clear. It is improper to alter anyone's posts in any manner designed to make the post different in meaning or tone. Colons are ok. Anything else is likely wrong. Collect (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not be coy here (for which you can read "context is everything" if you prefer). This is all part of Beeblebrox's recurrent attempts to provoke an editor he derides as "poisonous, nasty, (and) condescending". It is interesting to reflect on Beeblebrox's use of such language toward others as compared with his sensitivity to insult expressed above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Time to drag the kids apart, I think. I propose that we have a two month bilateral moratorium on Beeblebrox interacting with WMC. I'm pretty sure William will have no problem honouring that. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I guess it was too much to ask to keep this hypothetical. Don't worry, I have no intention of interacting with WMC in any way shape or form ever again. It's just not worth the insults and attacks from him and his fans.I'm not trying to provoke him, the whole point was to not name names, but Boris took a shit on that idea. I wanted to discuss this hypothetically in case such a situation came up somewhere else again in the future, since we apparently can't do that, forget the whole fucking thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)