→Help with possible range blocks: re Scotty |
|||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
::Yes, you're right, the filter wasn't active. It's standard practice to put a new filter in test mode for awhile to make sure it's only catching the edits you want it to catch. To date, it has caught 6 edits, which can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=525 here]. I'm satisfied that the filter is working correctly, so I've gone ahead and activated it a few minutes ago. That log page linked above will now show all of the edit attempts made by the user, and the filter will now start preventing these edits from being made. If you see any other edits get through, let me know. [[User:Scottywong|<span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#222222;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong</span>]][[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#227722;">| chatter _</span>]] 20:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
::Yes, you're right, the filter wasn't active. It's standard practice to put a new filter in test mode for awhile to make sure it's only catching the edits you want it to catch. To date, it has caught 6 edits, which can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=525 here]. I'm satisfied that the filter is working correctly, so I've gone ahead and activated it a few minutes ago. That log page linked above will now show all of the edit attempts made by the user, and the filter will now start preventing these edits from being made. If you see any other edits get through, let me know. [[User:Scottywong|<span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#222222;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong</span>]][[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#227722;">| chatter _</span>]] 20:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::Looks like the filter has caught 3 edits since it was turned on, and prevented him from editing. Now we'll see if he decides to quit, or if he trys to adapt to outsmart the filter. Here are the 3 edits (two are identical, he probably tried it twice to make sure it was real): [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/8114254] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/8114255] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/8114274]. [[User:Scottywong|<span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#444444;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong</span>]][[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#772277;">| comment _</span>]] 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC) |
:::Looks like the filter has caught 3 edits since it was turned on, and prevented him from editing. Now we'll see if he decides to quit, or if he trys to adapt to outsmart the filter. Here are the 3 edits (two are identical, he probably tried it twice to make sure it was real): [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/8114254] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/8114255] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/8114274]. [[User:Scottywong|<span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#444444;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong</span>]][[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#772277;">| comment _</span>]] 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::Thanks, Scotty. Two questions. First, is there a way to add a filter to one's watchlist (or something like that)? Two, are we going to block each IP who trips the filter?--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== PC2 for Mangoeater targets == |
== PC2 for Mangoeater targets == |
Revision as of 01:01, 19 January 2013
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
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu
(Initiated 29 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 84 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
new closer needed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE
(Initiated 65 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) - As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)
(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead
(Initiated 58 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?
(Initiated 48 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
- In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
- I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
- I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
- The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails
(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals
(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead
(Initiated 35 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL
(Initiated 31 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede
(Initiated 30 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 9 | 64 | 0 | 73 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 2 | 29 | 0 | 31 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer
(Initiated 66 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities
(Initiated 65 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe
(Initiated 62 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 61 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres
(Initiated 61 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)
(Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family
(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.
(Initiated 60 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge
(Initiated 59 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers
(Initiated 56 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists
(Initiated 55 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua
(Initiated 54 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers
(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn
(Initiated 51 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons
(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee
(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result
(Initiated 43 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people
(Initiated 42 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history
(Initiated 42 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon
(Initiated 41 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau
(Initiated 40 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge
(Initiated 38 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words
(Initiated 33 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh
(Initiated 32 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia
(Initiated 29 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal
(Initiated 433 days ago on 1 April 2023) The merge proposal was uncontested and carried out six months after the discussion opened. That merge was then reverted; a more formal consensus can be determined by now. — MarkH21talk 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not done – as you say, this "merge proposal was uncontested and carried out", so there is no need to formally close this merge discussion. What appears to be needed is more discussion on the talk page about the edits made after the obvious consensus of the merge discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- To editor MarkH21: apologies for the late ping. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.
- The merge proposal was made on 1 April 2023.
- The merge was performed here and here on 22 November 2023.
- The merge was reverted here and here on 22 November 2023. Immediately after the merge was reverted, the consensus on the talk page was not clear.
- The discussion Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal has been open since 22 November 2023. There have been no meaningful edits to British Ceylon period since the merge was reverted on 22 November 2023.
- So it is appropriate for an editor to assess the consensus of the discussion now, since the merge was contested and effectively never took place. — MarkH21talk 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.
- With respect, I disagree. While the consensus was clear enough before, your support made it even clearer that consensus is to merge. Please take another look at the yellow, #1 cue ball near the top of this page. Either a new discussion is needed or just boldly go ahead with the merger again. If you feel the need to close this discussion, then close it yourself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: Ah you've convinced me. I was being a bit too cautious and it was slightly counterproductive – sorry to take your time! I'll perform the merger, thanks. — MarkH21talk 00:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- With respect, I disagree. While the consensus was clear enough before, your support made it even clearer that consensus is to merge. Please take another look at the yellow, #1 cue ball near the top of this page. Either a new discussion is needed or just boldly go ahead with the merger again. If you feel the need to close this discussion, then close it yourself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 80 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 52 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal
(Initiated 8 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)
(Initiated 4 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Neutralhomer's editing restrictions
Some of you may remember the hot water Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) got hisself into last year, and the indef-block that resulted from it. That block was lifted (OK, nice passive there--I lifted it) with certain conditions and restrictions (more details here, for instance). In the meantime, Homer has, as far as I can tell, stayed out of trouble and has edited productively. He comes to my talk page with questions about reverts and such, he hasn't been brought up on any of the boards, and he hasn't been edit-warring (again, all this to the best of my knowledge: I'm not exactly following his every move). Anyway, it seems to me that I can loosen some of the restrictions he's been under; in a nutshell, from a limited 1R (I urged him not to make reverts in contentious areas and to keep me posted of problem edits he would before have Twinkled away) to 2R. More explanation on his talk page at User_talk:Neutralhomer#Reverting.
I'm bringing this here because I can fully understand admins having concerns still about Homer, given what he was initially blocked for, and the matter caused some controversy (or at least discussion) last October. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just for clarification — by "initially blocked for", do you mean the incident leading up to the indef, or do you mean this edit, which is linked in his first block log entry in 2007? Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) It might be helpful if you linked to a more complete history, here. Saying "some of you may remember the hot water" and "given what he was initially blocked for" is a tad vague, it it not? What did Neutralhomer do, and when did he do it? Has he done similar things before, or was it a one-off? Which accounts has he edited under? What, specifically, were the conditions of his unblock, and how were they arrived at? Finally, did you discuss this request with him at all, or are you springing it on him as a surprise? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The administrators who were involved with those various discussions know what I'm talking about, and if they're not and they're interested, there are plenty of links on the talk page discussion I linked to. No, I am not giving a complete history; a brief redux should do. This isn't about the unblock; it's a simple note about loosening some editing restrictions. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The AN thread leading up to the indefblock (which, Nyttend, is what I would guess Drmies is referring to) is here, with a section asking for a community ban for Neutralhomer right below it (obviously, that request didn't gain consensus). The ban request was specifically in response to Neutralhomer's actions during the thread, as admitted in this diff. My opinion is that I have no opinion, but I will be happy to do more digging here when I have more time, to find out what my opinion might be. bonus points if you know what that's a paraphrase of Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- WK, did you call to see what condition your condition was in? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Benjamin Franklin" in an episode of "John Adams"? Yeah, I Google'd it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- WK, did you call to see what condition your condition was in? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Drmies, I'm not faulting you for bringing this here, because that seems to be the prevailing approach in this type of situation, but WP would use up a lot less bandwidth on bikeshed issues if we just left these decisions up to the admin who understands the situation best (i.e. you). IMHO, just do what you think best. You were trusted to use sound judgement on this before, no reason not to trust you to do it now. I'd hate to see this degenerate into a "I think the 1RR should last for 3 more weeks" ... "Well, I think it should last 4 more weeks" ... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Floq. I disagree partially, of course, or I wouldn't be here--thing is, we didn't really formalize much about mentorship and all that, nor did the community really build a consensus on conditions. Not that they needed too, and I'm the last person to want to be so bureaucratic, but Homer came awfully close to being banned. I'm pleased to say that he hasn't even come close to getting into trouble again, and I suppose I wanted to mark that publicly. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, well I've "voted", so I'll go find something to do and leave you to your self-inflicted discussion :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Floq. I disagree partially, of course, or I wouldn't be here--thing is, we didn't really formalize much about mentorship and all that, nor did the community really build a consensus on conditions. Not that they needed too, and I'm the last person to want to be so bureaucratic, but Homer came awfully close to being banned. I'm pleased to say that he hasn't even come close to getting into trouble again, and I suppose I wanted to mark that publicly. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I trust Drmies decision to slightly loosen restrictions, and would support his judgement to decide further lifting in the future. Homer will ping me when Drmies isn't around, so I'm familiar with the situation and have noted a good effort to avoid issues. Some restrictions are still warranted but a slight lessening seems to be a good idea at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- As the unblocking admin, Drmies is probably in the best position to judge this one. I'm all for editors who learn from their mistakes regaining full editing privileges over time. A block that is learnt from should not be held against an editor for ever and ever. If Drmies thinks the restriction can be loosened to 2RR then I would support such a course of action. Neutralhomer is no doubt aware that any repeat of the original behaviour would result in another indef block. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree, if need be we can always tighten them back down again. Kumioko (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Too drastic; support reducing to 1.903 RR. NE Ent 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- <(())>< Here is your trout, Ent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seems sensible. NH has been a good editor whenever I've come across him. Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC).
- I don't know what constructive things Neutralhomer used to do, but I think there is reason to be very sceptical. My first contact with him was in 2009 after he was a first responder to an admin's question at AN, managed to push things in a very bad direction [1] and closed the thread after the innocent IP victim was blocked. I had to reopen the thread and leave a few harsh words there, resulting in gracious apologies by several admins for blocking or not unblocking. After which Neutralhome attacked me on my talk page [2] for having notified him when I reopened the thread. I don't think he ever apologised or understood why he was wrong. (The issue was edit-warring against this static single-user IP on their own talk page.)
It's interesting to see that he was indeffed recently for phoning an IP's employer to get them sacked.
Is there reason to believe he is going to learn from this? He has now promised to stop editing TV chain articles completely. That's good, but I am not very optimistic: (1) In early 2008 he socked while blocked for a "fuck you" (in Polish), then continued with another sock after being caught. (2) In April 2010 there was the block summary: "Misuse of the Twinkle automated edit tool, despite multiple instances of being chastised for its misuse and repeated instances of his agreeing to stop using it at all."
TLDR: Don't rely on any assurances. What seems required here is strict topic/behavioural bans enforceable without discussion by blocks. I doubt that 2RR is enough without a supporting topic ban. Hans Adler 00:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Hans: I am not going to defend what I have done, but I have tried to do better. Unlike most, I screw up a good bit, but not for the lack of trying. I do try to be a better editor. For example, after the "fuck you" in Polish, the editor that I directed that to and I are on speaking terms and we aren't snapping at each other's throats. After my last block, I voluntarily gave up TWINKLE. I work with not one, but three different admins to make sure my nose is kept clean. I actively triple-check everything I am going to say and if I think I am being to snarky, I let an admin say it for me (they are better at getting a point across without snark). That last one actually helps me in real life as apparently I am too blunt when I speak. Comes with the territory, I guess.
- To say that I need strict topic bans when I have limited my editing to just radio station pages and a couple non-radio pages (town pages, a Faroe Islands network, the ELCA page, and the usual talk pages) with the only TV station posts on December 23rd when a new TV network took over (and that was just to change a Wikilink), would be the same as blocking me. I would like to think I am doing better, but anymore limitations and I am pretty much not editing.
- @Everyone: I am trying my best to make the last block the last block. Prior to my last block in October, I had gone almost a year and a half without a block. That's pretty good for me consider my block log and yes, it sucks. I could say a million times I am trying, but I can only say it enough before people say "yeah, right, heard that before". Something I don't like to admit, mostly cause it is used against me and people think I used it as a crutch, I have Aspergers, which is a high-functioning form of Autism. I am not great in any social situation, but everyday is a learning experience. I am blunt, but people with Aspergers tend to be blunt. We aren't rude, we just speak our minds, which tends to get us in trouble. I try to change my behavior but like with everyone, we fall back into old habits, so do people with Aspergers. Am I making excuses? No. Should this excuse my behavior? Definitely no. But please know that while it seems like I am screwing up and getting better repeatedly, I am actually trying. I am trying to be a less snarky person, less blunt, less on the attack and more to help, walking away from areas that I genuinely like (TV stations) to avoid conflict, asking for help from others (not something I am big on having Aspergers, think Psychology). I try daily to act "normal" here and before my October block, I did go too far. I even went so far to get a medication change to prevent that from happening again. I am trying.
- TL;DR: I'm Autistic, not an excuse, I'm trying, stick with me, don't punish me, I'm trying to get better, to do better, to act better, to edit better. I'm trying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the information. You were of course under no obligation to volunteer it, but for me this changes everything. Under these circumstances I support relaxing your restriction even without a topic ban on TV chains. I am assuming that you will continue to work closely with other editors, and that they will assist you to stay out of problematic areas without the need for any explicit threats.
- I happen to believe that being autistic is a valid excuse for occasional overreactions. Of course, on the negative side, if things ultimately don't work out, it can't prevent a full ban. Hans Adler 02:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I will continue to work with Drmies, Dennis and others, probably after the restrictions are all lifted whenever in the future. I don't want people to see my Aspergers as an excuse or a crutch, or treat me different, which is why I don't volunteer it that much. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose any reduction in restrictions. Frankly, if you don't think it's an excuse you're doing a pretty good job of trying to use it as one - and I haven't seen a single point here that actually addresses why you got in hot water. Editors saying "fuck you" in polish was not why you were blocked. Giving up twinkle does not solve why you were blocked. "Being blunt" is not an explanation for your behaviour. Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, people with Aspergers do have a lot of trouble judging appropriateness in social situations. While they may be up to speed with their academic work, it takes much longer for their people skills to mature. It's just the nature of the condition. The steps outlined here, a change in medications and especially "three different admins to triple-check everything", seems like a reasonable plan. If only there were more "normal" people with such self-awareness about their personal limitations. —Neotarf (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ironholds, Homer was blocked for outing, for a pretty bad version thereof. He has not engaged in such behavior since. It seems to me that he gets in hot water when he gets caught up in revert wars, esp. if he believes he's reverting vandalism (and it's established that he's not always been correct in establishing whether something is or isn't). That's why a revert rule was a good idea, at least in my opinion, and that's why I think 2R is a good idea: essentially it's self protection. You may have noticed, on his talk page, his mentioning a particular sock who's active in that field that Homer chooses to work in, and he was asking if he could simply revert those sock edits since there is an SPI, proof of socking, etc. I said no, precisely because I want him to stop thinking that he is exempt from 3R even if he is absolutely positive. Moreover, his past edit-warring typically led to all-too much personal involvement (i.e., cussing and yelling, sometimes an extension of bluntness if I may put it that way), and he did address that point. So, I have good reasons for proposing what I did but, as I said before, this is subject to community approval.
On that note: I don't want his restrictions relaxed because I'm supposed to be trustworthy (ask around; the stock of my reputation has certainly plummeted recently); you should choose to agree or not based on his recent past which, in my opinion, has gone well enough. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ironholds, this is why I don't volunteer my having Aspergers, because people take my volunteering that information as my creating an excuse. It's not, it's me telling you and everyone why I act the way I do and what I am trying to do to change that. I am aware that Wikipedia isn't a therapists office and we aren't here to stand around and help NH get better. I'm doing that on my own, offline, what my volunteering my Aspergers is to show is that yeah, I have a problem, yeah, I am trying to fix that, yeah, I screwed up in the past, yeah, I am working with others to prevent that from happening again. One should never use or view Aspergers as a crutch or excuse, a person should acknowledge it is there, it isn't going anywhere (God knows I wish it would) and to work around it (I have to on most days). It isn't an excuse, it's something alot of people deal with and get better at overtime. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I know. I'm one of those people. And I cannot understand, even with my experience of the communications and propriety problems it causes, how it could possibly have led to the actions you took. Ironholds (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd rather not force NH into this corner, but I can say that with the research into ASD I've done, I'm not as surprised as you are Ironholds. The typical Aspie becomes very focused on something - anything. Sometimes "common sense" is placed well into the background in favour of "immediate resolution". Not that I want to speak on behalf of NH, and I'm sure not excusing the behaviour, but it's not abnormal (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bwilkins is right. The "this needs to be fixed now" part of my brain drowns out my common sense with a megaphone when I find a problem, something out of place, something that isn't right. It literally drives me nuts. I am almost having to redo the "wiring" in my head to stop "this needs to be fixed now" part of my brain from kicking in. It is tough, but the meds are helping, and that "fix it now voice" is being slowly (but surely) replaced by my "common sense voice" in my head. (Note: No, I don't hear voices, just a figure of speech) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd rather not force NH into this corner, but I can say that with the research into ASD I've done, I'm not as surprised as you are Ironholds. The typical Aspie becomes very focused on something - anything. Sometimes "common sense" is placed well into the background in favour of "immediate resolution". Not that I want to speak on behalf of NH, and I'm sure not excusing the behaviour, but it's not abnormal (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Drmies' decision. Drmies knows what he's doing and is trustworthy, and I'm quite certain he'll take appropriate action if the relaxation doesn't work. Neutralhomer is genuinely trying to do better, and that's worth supporting. After all, we're only talking about relaxing from 1RR to 2RR here! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support relaxing; if any new abusive behavior starts, we can always ratchet back up again. But staying out of hot water for a while and complying with the restrictions is the right way back and seems to have been successful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support relaxing the restrictions. I'm confident in Drmies' opinion and I trust Neutralhomer to be on his best behavior. Ryan Vesey 03:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting restrictions and request that Neutralhomer edit another Wiki for four months. In this diff, you can see that I was not able to work up and post an analysis before the unblock was carried out. If I recall, Fram was the only other admin involved in the decision to unblock. Give Neutralhomer credit for being forthright about the action, but in the WP:AN post of "04:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)", NH states that his goal in calling the editor's employer was to get the editor unemployed so as to stop alleged vandalism on Wikipedia. A look at the WP:AN closing statement shows, "There's not going to be a consensus for a community ban, nor is any admin going to be dumb enough to unblock, so we can all move on." So in effect, community discussion has been bypassed, both at the time of the failed community ban proposal, and at the time of the unblock. Caveat: I have been the target of personal attacks by both Neutralhomer and Drmies. Unscintillating (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Unscintillating: Forgive me, but it is 3:13am EST and my brain isn't working (lack of sleep) but I don't remember personally attacking you. Whenever I did, I am sorry. It doesn't really do much at this point, but there is no reason I should have personally attacked you and I shouldn't have been stubborn enough to not apologize immediately. I was then, I'm not now. I am sorry.
- I would like to address one thing you said in your linked post above: "Time is needed for behavior change". You are right and you are also wrong. Yes, behavior changes do take time...but with someone with Aspergers or Autism, they don't take 4 months or a year as you stated. They take many years, sometimes never, depending on the person. Not saying that is going to happen in this case (I would hope not) but it does happen. People on the Autism spectrum vary in many ways and behavior, like with all of us, is one of the toughest things to change in someone on "the spectrum" (ie: the Autism spectrum). People on the spectrum are highly resistent to change and we don't respond well to it. We must want to change before we will. I do want to change, I want to stop being as blunt as I have been, I want to stop being snarky, I want to stop being an asshole to anyone and everyone around me. It's a process and like with anyone, spectrum or no, it will take time and it will take more than a year, more than 5, I don't know how long. Autism, Aspergers, PDD-NOS, childhood disintegrative disorder, and Rett syndrome (the conditions on the Autism spectrum) are a learning experience and one that is a lifetime long. I'm not asking for Wikipedia to stand still while I get "better", I am just opening up on a subject I don't like talking about, my Aspergers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support slight loosening of restrictions Look, I'm not going to get into a discussion of how ASD/Aspergers causes X and Y - indeed, from what I see, NH is not using it as an excuse or crutch for his behaviour anymore (yes, long ago he did, but he's not now). Do I know for a fact that ASD has caused some pretty bad decisions on his part in the past? Yup. Blocks and restrictions are designed to prevent future problems, and if someone can show me somewhere how NH has willfully and/or recklessly violated his conditions over the past 3 or 4 months, then please show me where he caused those problems - I'm not seeing it. As such, the restrictions have been successful, and granting him some additional freedom is due as part of the rehabilitation process. Besides, it's not like we're giving him access to delete the entire wiki - we're simply going to allow him to be a normal editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Surprising support. I was the editor that called for the community ban and I'm disgusted with what NH did. I'm also fairly shocked that he was unblocked without (it seems) further discussion here. However, given that he is back and has been editing, it seems without offence, I am consistent in my opinion that people can change their ways and that we need good contributors. I'd support the easing of restrictions, but I'll be leading even stronger calls for a community ban if I see NH being reported here for disruption because, frankly, outing editors in a bid to get them dismissed from their jobs, is an offence far far worse than the vandalism, misuse of bots and other infractions of policy we normally dish out bans for. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Dweller, I had forgotten (or maybe I never knew) that you had indeffed him, a decision I thought understandable. I thought, though, that there was significant discussion at the time possibly at ANI about my unblock and the restrictions. I can't really be bothered to look for them right now (gotta pee and really I shouldn't be wikiing of right now), but if you thought there wasn't enough discussion, I'm sorry, and I hope (with good reason, judging from your response here) that it hasn't been a disappointment. At any rate, I certainly didn't feel at the time that I was going rogue by unblocking Homer. Let me point out as well that I myself had serious run-ins with Homer years ago; I suppose he and I have both changed enough to come to an agreement. Thanks for your response here, and I hope that you won't have reason to regret your words. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support loosening restrictions, probably fully. Seems we're at a weird technocratic point where NH knows exactly the process, and it's just slowing NH down from doing otherwise normal work. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just to note that I took over mentorship of Neutralhomer for a while whilst Drmies was unavailable. During the period he was under my wing, I was pleased with the work that I observed and how he handled issues he came across. More than that, I was impressed that he spotted potential issues and discussed them with me early on. Unfortunately, other commitments have meant that I am no longer able to mentor Neutralhomer, but I agree with Drmies on this relaxation. Support WormTT(talk) 15:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support but... leave the reins in Drmies' hands. If Drmies feels the restriction should be returned later, that is fine as a unilateral move. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Lift editing restrictions - Let him edit. Enough micromanaging. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support loosening restrictions. I vaguely recall some disputes with Neutralhomer in the past, but I think that Drmies can be trusted to do the right thing, and the remarks by Worm seal the deal for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Drmies and think they'll make a good decision. And think they'll be brave enough to reverse it if necessary. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Help with possible range blocks
There is ongoing IP disruption of multiple articles based on the report at ANEW and the update by User:RJFF. Although I've semi-protected a few of the articles, that doesn't seem to be sufficient (too many articles) to protect User:Danrolo's IP puppets. I believe the best fix is range blocks. There would need to be more than one because the address ranges begin with different high-level qualifiers. I don't consider myself good enough at this to determine the most efficient blocks, so I am seeking help. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to throw in an indef block and possibly a ban proposal, or do we feed out more rope? Sorry Bbb--that sounds like I'm ragging on you; I'm really ragging on us, since that talk page suggests action should have been taken much earlier. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the Danrolo account itself, I extended the block to a week yesterday, and I'm prepared to indef him, but it wasn't my number one priority because he's blocked. I was more interested in preventing further disruption from his puppets, and indeffing the master won't fix that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like he's working out of a /15 and a /16. That's be 192K addresses. I'd really have to be convinced the guy is a major disaster before I'd put in a block that big.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I was afraid of that. So what's the alternative?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Widespread semi-protection. I wind up keeping custom lists. User:Kww/Fragments of Jade, for example, and I can monitor it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Kww/Fragments_of_Jade. —Kww(talk) 03:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- How does one operate on such a massive range? Is it something one can do intentionally, or do we simply have a sockmaster whose ISP uses a ton of dynamic IP addresses? Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Does he always work on certain types of articles, or is there a pattern to what he adds/removes from articles? If so, you could consider making an addition to the edit filter that prevents edits from his IP range only if they match a specified pattern. I can help with this, if needed. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- His favourite thing is adding ideology labels to the infoboxes of political parties. He rarely edits the actual text of articles, because his English is too poor. He seems to consider himself an expert of all party systems around the world. In order to stop him you would have to semi-protect all articles on political parties of every country. --RJFF (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nyttend, it's controlled by the ISP. There's little a user can do to control it, and certainly nothing that I wouldn't consider covered by WP:BEANS.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Does he always work on certain types of articles, or is there a pattern to what he adds/removes from articles? If so, you could consider making an addition to the edit filter that prevents edits from his IP range only if they match a specified pattern. I can help with this, if needed. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- How does one operate on such a massive range? Is it something one can do intentionally, or do we simply have a sockmaster whose ISP uses a ton of dynamic IP addresses? Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Widespread semi-protection. I wind up keeping custom lists. User:Kww/Fragments of Jade, for example, and I can monitor it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Kww/Fragments_of_Jade. —Kww(talk) 03:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Scotty, based on what RJFF says, is an edit filter possible (doesn't sound like it)? Assuming it's not, should I keep a list like Kevin has and have RJFF feed me pages to add to the list? I must say that the idea of semi-protecting that many articles in response to socking seems almost as bad to me as a huge range block. Putting aside the distasteful defensiveness of the actions, it prevents innocent non-auto-confirmed accounts from legitimately editing a very large number of articles. Do we handle it like normal protection, meaning we don't protect the article until the disruption reaches a certain level (that would mitigate the effects somewhat)? And how long do we protect the articles for? Again, if that's the plan, I would be in favor of escalating lengths depending on the disruption, just as we would do with a normal RFPP request. Thoughts on any of this?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I can only share my techniques. I don't do it except for very persistent cases. I start usually with one month duration, go to three if it seems to be going on for a while, and rarely go over six months. I add articles to the protection list for any edit by the sockmaster. I understand your reticence about protecting large groups of articles, but if the other choice is having large groups of articles disrupted, I think it's a good tradeoff.—Kww(talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- If there is any type of pattern to the editing, then the edit filter would be preferable. For instance, if all the articles he edits are in the same (or similar) categories, or if he adds/removes the same text often, etc. Then, we can create an edit filter that only restricts editing if both the IP address is in the right range and the pattern fits. Could you post some diffs, or link to a list of his typical contributions? That might be the best way to determine if there is a pattern that the edit filter can detect, or if the only solution is a massive semi-protection campaign. Also, per WP:BEANS, we wouldn't want to post details about the actual pattern here, but perhaps discuss it off-wiki instead. Feel free to email me if you want to discuss particulars about a pattern. ‑Scottywong| express _ 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Danrolo is not interested in Wikipedia rules, community or talk pages. He won't read this. (Nearly) all articles he edits disruptively are on political parties. So they should be in sub-categories of Category:Political parties. Is that definition narrow enough to install a filter? Mostly he adds or changes something in the "ideology" and "position" parameters of the /Template:infobox political party/ in the respective articles, like here. --RJFF (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- And do we have the list of IP's he uses? Someone indicated it was a /15 and a /16 subnet, but didn't indicate the IP. I think I can come up with something in an edit filter. Why don't we try that, and if it doesn't work, we'll resort to protecting? ‑Scottywong| confer _ 16:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think I found the IP's on your talk page. I've got 186.78.0.0/15 and 190.22.128.0/17. I have edit filter 525 in test mode right now to see what it catches. I'll check on it later to see what we found. Let me know if those IP ranges aren't right. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- And do we have the list of IP's he uses? Someone indicated it was a /15 and a /16 subnet, but didn't indicate the IP. I think I can come up with something in an edit filter. Why don't we try that, and if it doesn't work, we'll resort to protecting? ‑Scottywong| confer _ 16:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Danrolo is not interested in Wikipedia rules, community or talk pages. He won't read this. (Nearly) all articles he edits disruptively are on political parties. So they should be in sub-categories of Category:Political parties. Is that definition narrow enough to install a filter? Mostly he adds or changes something in the "ideology" and "position" parameters of the /Template:infobox political party/ in the respective articles, like here. --RJFF (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- If there is any type of pattern to the editing, then the edit filter would be preferable. For instance, if all the articles he edits are in the same (or similar) categories, or if he adds/removes the same text often, etc. Then, we can create an edit filter that only restricts editing if both the IP address is in the right range and the pattern fits. Could you post some diffs, or link to a list of his typical contributions? That might be the best way to determine if there is a pattern that the edit filter can detect, or if the only solution is a massive semi-protection campaign. Also, per WP:BEANS, we wouldn't want to post details about the actual pattern here, but perhaps discuss it off-wiki instead. Feel free to email me if you want to discuss particulars about a pattern. ‑Scottywong| express _ 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I can only share my techniques. I don't do it except for very persistent cases. I start usually with one month duration, go to three if it seems to be going on for a while, and rarely go over six months. I add articles to the protection list for any edit by the sockmaster. I understand your reticence about protecting large groups of articles, but if the other choice is having large groups of articles disrupted, I think it's a good tradeoff.—Kww(talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- The IPs start either with 190.22... or with 186.79... --RJFF (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone for pitching in. Based on Drmies's suggestion (way above), I've indeffed Danrolo and tagged his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The filter is not working yet. He was able to make these contributions that are typical for his editing pattern. --RJFF (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- RJFF asked me on my talk page to semi-protect Saenuri Party, an article affected by this latest puppet (now blocked). I have no problem doing that, but what's the status of the filter? Scotty, you said it was in "test mode"; I assume that means that you're seeing whether it catches things but not actually preventing the edits. Did it catch the edits by the latest puppet? Should I semi-protect the article in the meantime? I'd just like to coordinate a bit here, that's all.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, the filter wasn't active. It's standard practice to put a new filter in test mode for awhile to make sure it's only catching the edits you want it to catch. To date, it has caught 6 edits, which can be seen here. I'm satisfied that the filter is working correctly, so I've gone ahead and activated it a few minutes ago. That log page linked above will now show all of the edit attempts made by the user, and the filter will now start preventing these edits from being made. If you see any other edits get through, let me know. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 20:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like the filter has caught 3 edits since it was turned on, and prevented him from editing. Now we'll see if he decides to quit, or if he trys to adapt to outsmart the filter. Here are the 3 edits (two are identical, he probably tried it twice to make sure it was real): [3] [4] [5]. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, the filter wasn't active. It's standard practice to put a new filter in test mode for awhile to make sure it's only catching the edits you want it to catch. To date, it has caught 6 edits, which can be seen here. I'm satisfied that the filter is working correctly, so I've gone ahead and activated it a few minutes ago. That log page linked above will now show all of the edit attempts made by the user, and the filter will now start preventing these edits from being made. If you see any other edits get through, let me know. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 20:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
PC2 for Mangoeater targets
As anyone who monitors AN/I, SPI, CSD, AFD, or even, lately, RFA [6] knows, de facto banned Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has been incredibly persistent in his disruption, generally in relation to articles on NYU Poly (promoting it) and Cal Poly Pomona (trying to minimize it). It got so bad that two weeks ago Reaper Eternal full-protected Polytechnic Institute of New York University and List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people until March 28 and March 6, respectively. To me this seems unfortunate (though I completely understand and agree with Reaper's decision), especially as both articles are in serious need of improvement. So, I was wondering if we could discuss the option of implementing Pending Changes Level 2 protection (in conjunction with semi-protection, probably). While there was never any community endorsement of its use, neither was there, as King of Hearts pointed out at AN/I recently, explaining his decision to apply PC2 to 1948 Arab-Israeli War, any consensus against its use, meaning that there's nothing to stop the community from making ad hoc IAR decisions to apply it to certain articles. (Elockid has since applied PC2 to First York, Transdev York, and York Pullman.) Clearly it's better to let users edit an article, subject to review, than to not let them at all, and both articles are monitored by several reviewers and admins. Furthermore, Mangoeater has been active since May, had his first sock blocked in July, and has been indeffed since October, so there's no reason to believe he won't just start up again come March. I suggested at the Arab-Israeli War AN/I thread that we hold future discussions PC2 discussions here, as AN/I can be so hostile that well-respected community members steer clear of it, limiting the degree of consensus that can be achieved on anything policy-related. So, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Thoughts? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Not because I don't think putting PC2 on as an alternative to full-protection is a bad idea to protect against banned socks (etc.) but because the community consensus in the PC RfCs doesn't endorse PC2 and use of it is likely to lead to accusations that we are setting off down a slippery slope, on an express train through some undemocratic wasteland. So, yes, support in theory, but in practice it seems like the community will excrete a brick. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the previous discussion I mentioned can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#What is the appropriate level of protection for an article with the following characteristics ? Everyone who commented agreed that PC2 was merited, simply leaving the question of whether the community allowed its implementation. The only objection to KoH's decision was by The Devil's Advocate, who himself noted that he supports PC2; considering that this managed to fall off the board, it's clear that no one, even at AN/I, had a serious enough objection to raise hell in the ways you describe. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Both PC2 and full protection are game-able by socks, but this won't be substantially easier for them, while this will be substantially easier for good-faith editors than it would be to force them to use editprotected requests all the time. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support per IAR, even though I believe it would be more optimal to gain consensus for its use to avoid any possible shenanigans. I would also think an edit filter would be a good alternative in many cases, but here it seems that the behavior is not truly consistent enough for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support, this seems to be one of those cases for which IAR exists. --Nouniquenames 04:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note, if anyone would like to reference the note I ended up leaving on the talkpage of the article referenced above, that kind of note should suffice to explain the reasoning for the PC2. As long as we don't go PC2 on everything, I think it's okay for a very select few articles. gwickwiretalkedits 04:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. A little ironic, because I like PC2 and detest PC1, but with the amount of dishonesty that went on with the original implementation of PC, I think anything that even smells of going against community consensus needs to be avoided. The primary opposition to PC was based on "slippery slope" style of arguments, and this just feeds them.—Kww(talk) 04:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This is ridiculous. Maybe Elockid added PC2 by accident, but either way this should not be getting implemented like this, period. It can only create confusion for admins and reviewers. So I implore any admin to immediately remove the PC2 protection from any articles that have them. As far as I know this would just be the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, the Transdev York article, the First York article, and the York Pullman article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- How do you suppose it will confuse admins or reviewers? --Jasper Deng (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I know it confused me to see an article on my watchlist (1948 Arab-Israeli War) with PC2 protection when I knew the RfC did not get consensus for that level of protection. You may also have the old "other people are doing so it must be acceptable" reaction and then have admins imposing PC2 protection like any other protection under the impression it is now legit. Not to mention that we don't have a clear procedure set out for reviewing changes of the sort PC2 is being used to stop in these ad-hoc cases. Although not related to the above, the whole notion of half a dozen editors using AN/ANI as a workaround for an RfC that involved several dozen editors is not the sort of thing I endorse.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't understand your last sentence; could you clarify what you mean? Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe TDA is listing the four articles currently under PC2 protection (according to the relevant category; it's possible that others are, but haven't been tagged with {{pp-pc2}}, which auto-categorizes them). In response to TDA's general points, though, I, like, Jasper, don't really follow: This is about as visible a forum as it gets; if it's good enough to ban and unban users, I'd think it's good enough to apply protection to a single article. So I don't really understand what could be confusing about this. I don't see what's ridiculous about trying to stop a lone troll from permanently stalling the improvement of two articles in need of substantial cleanup. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- You may find this astonishing, but plenty of people edit Wikipedia without paying any mind to cesspools such as this page and certainly many edit without looking at it on a regular basis. Circumventing a broad and lengthy community discussion involving dozens of editors by using AN because you want to thump on the socks is not appealing to me at all.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not circumventing consensus; I'm seeking it. Circumventing it would be to find some out-of-the-loop admin and email them to ask if they'd mind downgrading it to PC2. Starting a thread at the board that we use for some of our most substantial discussions is seeking it. "No consensus" is not a valid reason to oppose a proposal, for rather obvious reasons. If the consensus here is that this really needs to be done by RfC, so be it, but WP:PC2012/RfC 1 closed as "No consensus", so it's really not circumventing anything to start a discussion in a prominent community forum as to whether we should apply PC2 to a particular article. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I have been a firm supporter of using PC2 in limited circumstances, and this is certainly one of them. But the PC debate has been a feculent clusterfuck of drama in large part because of the failure to end the initial trial on time. As such, doing *anything* new with PC, including any use of PC2, without an explicit and broad community consensus, seems foolhardy due to the risk of disrupting the community. It's "cheaper in the long run", to do this right, even if it means a few full protects in the meantime. Want PC2? I'll be there at the RFC supporting it. But not until. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)- Moving to Support in view of listing at WP:CENT, which I believe will reduce the probability of bad splashback. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support In this case, I believe WP:IAR applies. This is a wayyy better solution than full protection here since good faith editors don't need to make edit-requests all the time. It also protects against socks. It's a win-win situation, and it works extremely well here. Vacation9 13:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Gives editors in good standing better leverage against likely POV changes from socks. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Use this as a test case if necessary but the more countermeasures we use for persistent socks the better off we will be.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC) - Support, this is definitely the case for PC2 to be implemented on. A little concerned that PC2 had no consensus at the time of PC implementation, but in this context, I like it. Let's see if the community is willing to play ball. -T.I.M(Contact) 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose if we were to every use PC2, this would be the type of case. But A) there is no consensus to use it at all and B) as Kww and others have said, there has been way too much drama around this in the past to open up this can of worms now. Fully protect it if needed, but PC2 is a really bad idea as it will create more drama and work than it will save. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. PC2 has never been approved for use on Wikipedia (outside of the trial a couple of years ago). That it was approved was one interpretation of the close in June to the big PC RfC, but during the September RfC specifically on PC2, the case was convincingly made that neither the voters nor the closers in the spring had given PC2 much thought. PC2 would be something not only new, but revolutionary, on Wikipedia (creating a class of Wikipedians whose job it is to decide which edits of everyone else are good enough to stay and which aren't), so turning it on would require consensus; the RfC was closed as no consensus. To use it now is to say that developers and not the Wikipedian community have the authority to decide how we protect pages on Wikipedia. Reading quickly, I don't see evidence that any of the supporters above have considered any of the problems with PC2 that were pointed out in the September RfC. In particular, this is a critical stage for PC1, which is new and unexpected for most editors ... and now, as a result of allowing the use of PC2 here, an editor has just changed the table which is supposed to describe PC1 back into a table giving two PC2 options, which is going to make it even harder for people to get comfortable with PC1. Having said all that: IAR is policy, and I'm always in favor of non-disruptive experimentation. If this were just treated as a lone experiment, with discussion about possible positive and negative consequences and requests for alternatives that might be better than PC2, and if there were no changes to the main PC page, I wouldn't have any strong feelings about it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd totally support changing it back when there are no article space pages with PC2, but it appears there are a couple currently [7]. Monty845 01:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've respectfully reverted you, Monty; if this proposal is successful, I'm planning on adding a few footnotes explaining that there've been a handful of IAR applications. But considering that the abbreviated table already links to the full one, I think it's unnecessary to revise policy based on the minority of cases. I'd like to make it clear to all who've opposed that I very much feel that a large-scale implementation of PC2 should only be conducted through an RFC, and that this noticeboard is not the place to establish binding precedent. Anyways, Dank, if I clarify that my intention, at least, as original poster, was only to, as you say, treat this as a lone experiment (and, looking through the support !votes, it appears to me that this is the general sentiment among those who support), would you perhaps reconsider your !vote? You make some very good points against PC2 in general, but you seem to concede that it could be effective here. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- When this turns into an actual experiment ... with the supporters agreeing that the point is to try new approaches to a difficult problem, discussing pros and cons and alternatives on the article talk page, rather than taking the position that this is an approved protection tool that needs no discussion ... I'll strike my oppose, if this thread hasn't been archived. Note that a form of protection that would be obviously superior to PC2 (if used only for these rare cases of very determined socks) would be to make some pages require 50 (or 100 or 250) prior edits by new accounts; that wouldn't create a special class of editors charged with ruling on everyone else's edits, but it would succeed in frustrating the socks, and would make it easier for us to identify them, possibly before they can even edit their target pages. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean as a sort-of ultraconfirmed usergroup, and corresponding ultra-semi-protection? gwickwiretalkedits 03:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- You could think of it that way, though I'd want this to remain rare enough that it wouldn't make sense to talk on-wiki about a new "class" of Wikipedians ... just have the code exclude edits by people with less than 100 (or whatever number works best) contribs, for a handful of articles. Obviously not something we'd want to apply often, but it beats all hell out of PC2 ... particularly in this case, where PC2 is being used to let reviewers rule on whether edits are coming from socks ... when reviewers aren't being selected or encouraged to do any such thing, reviewers are supposed to be checking for vandalism and BLP edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose There exists, as of this posting, 125,500 active users, of whom only 7,000 have reviewer capability(reviewers + admins). Only 3600 editors are watching this page, and obviously many of those are admins. Even if we assume there are zero admin or reviewer watchers, that means only 117,000 or 3% of active editors are monitoring this page. To disable the effective editing capability of 97% of Wikipedia editors without notice is disruptive to the editing process. NE Ent 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow: Currently, there are only 856 users who can edit these articles, and very few of them probably ever will; if we implement PC2, any user (or, assuming we combine it with semi-protection, any autoconfirmed user) will be able to; yes, their edits will be subject to review, but I think it's safe to say reviewers will be very cautious before rejecting submissions that wouldn't fall under their purview under PC1. (In fact, we can explicitly mandate this, if desired.) I hate removing editing access to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit as much as the next guy, but that's why I'm suggesting this: Nothing less than PC2 will have any hope of being effective while Mangoeater's out there, and full protection is... awful. The question here is should we leave an article un-edit-able for three months over philosophical objections to the general theory of PC2? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Full protection provides a clear and well known interface; PC2 does not, it provides a "fake edit" interface that makes it appear to autoconfirmed editors they're editing the current view of the page, but they're not. FPP is good because we know it's painful, which mitigates the temptation to overly apply it; because PC2 appears to be cheap there will be a tendency to use it more and more. Long term normal editors will have to become reviewers or the reviewers will have to spend more and more time reviewing. Now is the the time to address the question how will this scale? "Four" articles becomes 40 becomes 400... NE Ent 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Philosophical objections? Replying on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would support using PC2 on the pages only if we agree that it is a test case and the protection is temporary. (Having worked with Dank on some of the recent PC RfCs, I agree with many of his views on the matter.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, largely per Kww. Let's not go down this road. We just finished a seemingly interminable process involving multiple RfCs and much contentiousness. Enough is enough for a while. While it may be tempting to make "just one exception" here, exactly how long would it be before someone wants another exception, and another, and another? And if the rationale given in those subsequent requests is compelling, what then? Somehow we got by for more than a decade without PC1, and we seem to be doing all right without PC2 now. Anyone who'd like to modify a fully-protected article can make an edit request. Rivertorch (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support with the condition that every registered (inserted edit - I meant autoconfirmed) user is given reviewer rights. Otherwise Oppose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe this is just a case of somewhat-too-deadpan reductio ad absurdum (in which case, well played), but granting all registered users "reviewer" status would not only make PC2 identical to PC1, but reduce both of their protectiony-ness to below that of the current PC1, since it would allow non-autoconfirmed but registered (and therefore reviewer) accounts to bypass the protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I knew I should have wink-smiley-faced it. One of the reasons PC2 didnt gain consensus was the argument that it would create another layer of trusted users/permission levels/senority, however you wish to word it. Setting the reviewer bar as low as possible would eliminate that concern. However I did mean 'auto-confirmed' in the above, not merely 'registered' so have clarified. But I was only semi-serious. I would support admins ignoring the lack of community consensus regarding PC2 only if the reviewer bar was low, as accusations of power-gathering/protectionism are irrelevant at that point. Otherwise if the 'community' is not going to be made reviewers, then effectively the lack of consensus should stand, otherwise its just another wedge between admins and non-admins. Either respect lack of previous consensus, or hold another PC RFC (yes yes, another one). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe this is just a case of somewhat-too-deadpan reductio ad absurdum (in which case, well played), but granting all registered users "reviewer" status would not only make PC2 identical to PC1, but reduce both of their protectiony-ness to below that of the current PC1, since it would allow non-autoconfirmed but registered (and therefore reviewer) accounts to bypass the protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not usually a big fan of slippery-slope arguments, but in this case, it's compelling. We as a community have seen fit to keep PC2 from entering the admin toolbox. We've had one instance of PC2 slipping under the radar already; here we're asking for another. At what point are we admins just overreaching and ignoring the consensus of the community? I don't think this instance puts us over that line, but it's a line that we should be staying far away from. If it's not in our toolbox, we don't get to use it, period. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose obviously. WP:PC2012/RfC 1. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- So a lack of consensus is reason to oppose an attempt at getting consensus? Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- With respect, I think you've got it backwards; it appears to me that the opposers are doing the things normally associated with trying to get consensus, such as pointing to past discussions and weighing pros and cons. I'm not saying that supporters don't know what they're talking about, and don't believe that ... but if I'm just looking at what's on this page, I don't see evidence that the people who supported before I weighed in were either considering past arguments or encouraging people to treat this as an experiment. OTOH, I'm not on board with "just say no", either ... the September RfC closed with a recommendation to look at this again in six to nine months, after we had sufficient experience with PC1 to be able to say something intelligent about where all this is going. Let's make it six months, and let's spend a couple of months looking at PC1, PC2, and alternatives to PC2. My preference, based on what I've seen so far, is stated in my thread above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's no problem attempting to get consensus, there's a problem with claiming consensus for so fundamental a wikitask as article editing on a page which bills itself as "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators ... Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." (emphasis original)NE Ent 18:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- But this does affect administrators because this thread is about a specific dane-braimaged sock and trying to effectuate countermeasures to halt him. Yes, Dank, my support statement above encourages this to be an experiment but one that needs done now not in one or three months. Mangoeater is wasting too much of our time and we are looking to halt him ASAP. This limited use on what, maybe 10 articles(?), probably would affect less than 100 regular editors. I'm not part of the discussions on PC and hold no particular opinions on them but my ears have perked up at the idea of seeing another tool in grasp for ridding us of some of the worst problem children.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- But this does affect administrators because this thread is about a specific dane-braimaged sock and trying to effectuate countermeasures to halt him. Yes, Dank, my support statement above encourages this to be an experiment but one that needs done now not in one or three months. Mangoeater is wasting too much of our time and we are looking to halt him ASAP. This limited use on what, maybe 10 articles(?), probably would affect less than 100 regular editors. I'm not part of the discussions on PC and hold no particular opinions on them but my ears have perked up at the idea of seeing another tool in grasp for ridding us of some of the worst problem children.
- So a lack of consensus is reason to oppose an attempt at getting consensus? Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose' even though it might make my specific job easier. I am currently dealing with an edit request for one of the related articles, which I am answering in good faith, though it is made by a new SPI, and consists essentially of a request to restore the old and inappropriately promotional material. It is I think easy to justify my edits and non-edits, but I am editing through protection, which is always an uncomfortable position. The reason for my oppose is very simple: irrelevant to the merits of PC2, doing it now is hopelessly confusing. We have enough problems with PC1 being unfamiliar. Let's learn to use it first, and then see if the community wants to make a trial of going to the next level. If the PC1 experience is good, they probably will, so what we should concentrate on is getting PC1 to be part of the accepted and understood routine. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Demonym for New South Wales article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This problem is over the demonym for residents of the Australian state of New South Wales. Two terms in common use exist, "New South Welsh" and New South Welshman". The infobox for the article on New South Wales previously only had "New South Welshman", as well as including a hidden note in the box stating that "New South Welshman" is the only proper term regardless of gender, and warning editors to not add "New South Welsh". Back in December 2010 I ignored the hidden note however, having watched a video with the State Premier using the term "New South Welsh". This was subsequently undone by AussieLegend with an edit summary claiming that only natural born-and-raised Australians are credible sources. I reverted that edit once myself pointing out the ignorance of such a suggestion considering the position of the source, and that was again reverted by AussieLegend. I walked away and haven't touched the article until recently, hoping that users with such unhelpful outlooks on sources had "moved on". Early this morning I came back to the article, and re-added "New South Welsh" alongside "New South Welshman", then went to bed. About an hour after that edit, I was again reverted by AussieLegend with anotehr unhelpful edit summary. I have attempted to provide various sources on AussieLegend's talk page, including a newspaper article dating back to 1860 showing long historical use of the term "New South Welsh". He has chosen to overlook my sources.
I attempted to open a dispute resolution, and that was closed as insufficient and premature. However that assessment is wrong for a few reasons. First, I have tried talking with the user on his talk page, but it is clear that such a discussion will be completely unfruitful. Second, the issue was discussed on the article talk page by various users who never came about to any solution, and while AussieLegend claimed in his edit summaries back in 2010 that the issue was resolved on the talk page, that clearly is false. Third, I am under civility and editing restrictions which greatly limits my ability to engage in the issue myself without some form of involvement from the Community.
Because A: I have provided numerous sources for "New South Welsh", B: AussieLegend has been unable in 2 years to provide any source on the exclusivity of "New South Welshman", and C: "I never heard it so-and-so" is not considered a factual basis for making decisions on Wikipedia, I need community consensus to add "New South Welsh" to the infobox alongside "New South Welshman". Fry1989 eh? 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot find any edits by you on the talk page. Can you point me to them? The talk page discussion you link to is from 2006. 28bytes (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fry should open a discussion at Talk:New South Wales and include the references at User_talk:AussieLegend#New_South_Welsh. Then, if no one responds, try WP:RFC and/or WP:3RD. NE Ent 21:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have not edited the talk page of the article. I did not back in 2010 because I instead walked away from the issue, I can't remember why it was a long time ago. This time I chose not to because when my addition was once again reverted, AussieLegend personally asked for sources, which I provided on his talk page. Because of my restrictions, and quite frankly my energy, I don't have time to keep arguing with him, which it looks like all would come from continuing to engage on his talk page. Another reason I have not attempted to gain consensus on the talk page of the article is because I feel it will not be enough, AussieLegend has made the article personal by inflecting that "New South Welsh" can't be on it because he "never heard of it". Fry1989 eh? 21:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
See concurrent discussion at ANI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I am currently (self) nominated to become a member of BAG (Bot Approvals group). Any questions and input you may have is invited with open arms here. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Mediation Committee page is outdated
This problem should be answered, or indeed fixed, at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Outdated.3F "This Wikipedia page is outdated. Please update this Wikipedia page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information." There is nothing on the Talk Page, and nobody seems to be paying any attention. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is not an administrative issue, discussion is in fact underway at the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Controversial CfD proposal
A rather controversial CfD proposal to delete more than 1,000 empty categories could do with more participation from all kinds of experienced editors. A note has also been posted at the Village Pump. Since the cats under discussion are not individually tagged, other means to raise awareness about this and get a broader discussion are used instead. Fram (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata
Wikipedia:Wikidata interwiki RFC - even if you're not involved in the Wikidata project, this is something that admins should be aware of that will happen in February. --Rschen7754 09:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Blocking misbehaving bots
Wanting to let everyone know about the new {{Bot block message}}. Over at WP:ANI, someone reported that CrimsonBot was misbehaving, so I performed a standard block: indef with no autoblocks and a message at the operator's talk page explaining what was going on. Unfortunately, this has contributed to the operator's sense that Wikipedia's not enjoyable, and he's retired. With this in mind, I looked for a boilerplate template to be used on the talk pages of operators of good-faith, approved bots that have been blocked because of malfunctioning, but I couldn't find one. Toshio Yamaguchi has written the new template (in response to my request at WP:HD), and I believe it's ready to go. Please make necessary tweaks and updates when you think of them. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The bot owner should NOT have taken the blocking of their bot personally ... my own was blocked because it was operating in error. It in no way reflects on the BotOp .. technology is not perfect. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Has anyone e-mailed CrimsonBlue (talk · contribs) to see if he'll re-consider his retirement? GiantSnowman 16:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- While BWilkins is right, it's no big deal, Nyttend should not have blocked the bot regardless, as it hadn't edited in two days. A simple message to the operator's talk page notifying them of the issue is advisable and equally effective. Snowolf How can I help? 16:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The bot owner should NOT have taken the blocking of their bot personally ... my own was blocked because it was operating in error. It in no way reflects on the BotOp .. technology is not perfect. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bit concerned about this - some bot blocks do give the operator permission to unblock the bot explicitly. --Rschen7754 19:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well we don't have to use the template. Pretty sure that we don't routinely give permission, and when one of those exceptions occurs, we can just leave a custom message. This isn't meant to change policy one little bit. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- admin parameter added to template. NE Ent 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Will that always display "you may unblock the bot" to admins? If so, it shouldn't be added; even admins shouldn't normally unblock their own bots. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Only if the user of the template intentionally adds the parameter. (Personally I don't think it's ever a good idea for an admin to unblock their own template, but that's between ya'll. ) NE Ent 20:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I feel that instances like this would always be better to use a custom message rather than a template. Yes the bot had only got part way through the task and blocking was probably the right thing to do, but as above the bot hadn't edited in days, may have been able to be resolved without the block. Also in regards to admins unblocking their own bots, I disagree in saying that they cannot. I have always unblocked my bot after it has been blocked due to errors. The bot operator is the only person that knows when it is safe to unblock the bot, essentially what you would be doing is asking someone that can unblock the bot and that knows it is safe to do so to ask another admin to unblock the bot who would know less about the situation. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Addshore, I agree with you (in most cases) but recent arbcom cases have really muddied this. To some, it is a truly egregious violation of INVOLVED to unblock your own bot in any scenario without explicit permission. I've never blocked a bot, but if I did in a case like this and the owner was an admin, given the recent arbcom noise on this I would almost certainly say "go ahead and unblock once you've fixed this" in my notifying message. So for me, I guess I can't use this template, generally. Again, I haven't blocked a bot and don't do a lot of blocks anyway so don't change it on my account, I'm just trying to provide a perspective here. HaugenErik (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The message will say When the concerns have been addressed, you may unblock the bot. if the template is posted with admin=y (e.g.
- Addshore, I agree with you (in most cases) but recent arbcom cases have really muddied this. To some, it is a truly egregious violation of INVOLVED to unblock your own bot in any scenario without explicit permission. I've never blocked a bot, but if I did in a case like this and the owner was an admin, given the recent arbcom noise on this I would almost certainly say "go ahead and unblock once you've fixed this" in my notifying message. So for me, I guess I can't use this template, generally. Again, I haven't blocked a bot and don't do a lot of blocks anyway so don't change it on my account, I'm just trying to provide a perspective here. HaugenErik (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I feel that instances like this would always be better to use a custom message rather than a template. Yes the bot had only got part way through the task and blocking was probably the right thing to do, but as above the bot hadn't edited in days, may have been able to be resolved without the block. Also in regards to admins unblocking their own bots, I disagree in saying that they cannot. I have always unblocked my bot after it has been blocked due to errors. The bot operator is the only person that knows when it is safe to unblock the bot, essentially what you would be doing is asking someone that can unblock the bot and that knows it is safe to do so to ask another admin to unblock the bot who would know less about the situation. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Only if the user of the template intentionally adds the parameter. (Personally I don't think it's ever a good idea for an admin to unblock their own template, but that's between ya'll. ) NE Ent 20:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Will that always display "you may unblock the bot" to admins? If so, it shouldn't be added; even admins shouldn't normally unblock their own bots. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:Bot block message|[[User:ExampleBot]]|admin=y}})
- NE Ent 21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I see absolutely no problem with a bot op unblocking their own bot once they've fixed whatever problem prompted the block in the first place. Requiring them to ask another admin to do it is pointless bureaucracy, in my opinion. As Addshore says, the bot operator is in the best position to know whether the bot is ready to go back online. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- ya'll got a source for that contention? "Inexperienced managers sometimes gamble on the success of a project by skipping thorough testing or having programmers do post-development functional testing of their own work, a decidedly high risk gamble." NE Ent 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Let's say my bot goes nuts and is blocked. I think I fixed the problem and then unblock it, but it continues to go nuts. Well, then I'm rightfully on the hook for unblocking it. But let's say, instead, I ask another admin to unblock it, telling them it's fixed, so they unblock it, and it goes nuts, and now both of us look bad. How is that an improvement? The unblocking admin isn't a QA department; the bot op is ultimately responsible for the proper functioning of their bot, whether they unblock it themselves or go bother another admin to do it. 28bytes (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, why do you assume CrimsonBlue's decision to stop editing is related to the bot being blocked? I doubt he has a problem with it, he has personally asked me to block malfunctioning bots in the past. Secondly, the case of blocking a malfunctioning block is so rare as to be a case where a custom message should be typed. It is a very simple thing to do. Finally, if a bot was blocked for malfunctioning, and you fix it, then you can unblock it. That's just common sense. Prodego talk 22:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- There have been issues in the past related to bot operators unblocking their own bots which have resulted in significant expenditures of dispute resolution resources and significant sanctions for the bot operator. NE Ent 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- You can't legislate away incompetent bot operation. No matter who unblocks, you are still taking the bot ops word that "the problem is fixed". Prodego talk 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sanctions, I hope, for unblocking a still-malfunctioning bot. Sanctioning anyone for unblocking a fixed bot would be a bit daft. 28bytes (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, but again, arbcom and many others certainly do not. Unless and until WP:BOTISSUE is amended to reflect what you and I see as common sense, it is probably best to explicitly and clearly give admin bot owners the goahead if you block. HaugenErik (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, why do you assume CrimsonBlue's decision to stop editing is related to the bot being blocked? I doubt he has a problem with it, he has personally asked me to block malfunctioning bots in the past. Secondly, the case of blocking a malfunctioning block is so rare as to be a case where a custom message should be typed. It is a very simple thing to do. Finally, if a bot was blocked for malfunctioning, and you fix it, then you can unblock it. That's just common sense. Prodego talk 22:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Let's say my bot goes nuts and is blocked. I think I fixed the problem and then unblock it, but it continues to go nuts. Well, then I'm rightfully on the hook for unblocking it. But let's say, instead, I ask another admin to unblock it, telling them it's fixed, so they unblock it, and it goes nuts, and now both of us look bad. How is that an improvement? The unblocking admin isn't a QA department; the bot op is ultimately responsible for the proper functioning of their bot, whether they unblock it themselves or go bother another admin to do it. 28bytes (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Instead of having a flag to say that the operator is an admin and may unblock (as opposed to contacting the blocking admin or a noticeboard), I suggest that there be a flag to say that unblocking is at the sole discretion of the bot operator. With this flag, admin operators can unblock their own bot (uncontroversially), and non-admins can post an uncontroversial unblock request. The flag would be used when there is no reason to believe that the operator would allow the errors to continue. This allows the blocking admin to disclaim ownership of the block, reduces unnecessary drama on noticeboards, and levels the playing field slightly between admins and non-admins. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- And at the end of the day after a bot malfunction I am sure any BotOp, after fixing the issues, would test their code again and watch their bot edit for a duration before they deem it to be fixed. (EC by Bovlb), After reading what you have written it would almost make sense to have a flag for all botops to control the status of their bots on wiki, I am not saying the ability to block and unblock, but maybe something else, just a thought. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
...and not to throw a wet blanket on the whole template idea, but I suspect in almost all cases a brief, personal explanation as to why you're blocking would be preferable. 28bytes (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- My whole reason for wanting a your-bot-was-blocked template was because I feared that my personalised note to CrimsonBlue was ungracious and thus part of his reason for retirement. I wanted to know if we had a gracious template that would get across the you're-not-in-trouble message, since all our block templates are meant for more-or-less bad faith editing, not misbehaving bots. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- As a bot operator, I'd find that template singularly unhelpful: I don't want reassurances that I'm not in trouble or vague statements that "something might be going wrong", I want diffs showing problematic edits, and (assuming it's not something self-evident like page blanking) an explanation of why the diffs are problematic. See [8] for an example of what I consider a good problem report, and [9] for a bad one. --Carnildo (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd envisioned leaving a two-part message: first the template, and then a message explaining the problem or linking to a discussion about it (e.g. an ANI thread), except of course in cases when the owner had already been notified about the issue. Boilerplate here is meant as a reassurance that the operator's good faith isn't being doubted and that the blocking admin is hoping to see the bot fixed instead of seeing it being stopped permanently. That's why I preferred my wording, which solidly asserts that the bot was broken and that it needs to be fixed; when something might be going wrong, we should warn the operator, and we should only block a bot when it's plainly going bonkers. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I still fall into the "don't template the regulars" camp on this one, but perhaps other bot operators have a different view. I've posted a note on the bot owners' noticeboard requesting their feedback. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd envisioned leaving a two-part message: first the template, and then a message explaining the problem or linking to a discussion about it (e.g. an ANI thread), except of course in cases when the owner had already been notified about the issue. Boilerplate here is meant as a reassurance that the operator's good faith isn't being doubted and that the blocking admin is hoping to see the bot fixed instead of seeing it being stopped permanently. That's why I preferred my wording, which solidly asserts that the bot was broken and that it needs to be fixed; when something might be going wrong, we should warn the operator, and we should only block a bot when it's plainly going bonkers. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- As a bot operator, I'd find that template singularly unhelpful: I don't want reassurances that I'm not in trouble or vague statements that "something might be going wrong", I want diffs showing problematic edits, and (assuming it's not something self-evident like page blanking) an explanation of why the diffs are problematic. See [8] for an example of what I consider a good problem report, and [9] for a bad one. --Carnildo (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Number of page watchers tool deprecated
Hi. It's now possible to view the number of page watchers via the "info" action. For example, at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=info>, you can see that Main Page has over 76,500 page watchers. In the coming weeks, I'll be deprecating the watcher tool. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The info page itself has a link to the old tool at the bottom, under "External Tools" -- I have no idea how that's edited. NE Ent 02:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- MediaWiki:Pageinfo-footer. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for updating that page. :-)
- The link is also available from MediaWiki:Histlegend. I'm thinking that replacing (rather than removing) the link from there makes more sense, but I think I'd like to develop a better target for the link first. I guess there are two approaches to take: (1) replace the watcher link with a link to action=info; or (2) replace the watcher link with a link to action=info with an anchor to the number of watchers row, preferably highlighted (like we do with clicked references). Option 2 is my preference, but the underlying HTML currently has no support for this. The tool is only deprecated, not yet abandoned, though, so there's time to work all of this out. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I like (2), and I suppose this is better than nothing. (It's quite bizarre that the
id
for that sub-table begins with#
, though. Is that typical?) AGK [•] 22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)- I can't code, so I can't solve problems, but I'm good at pointing out problems for others to worry about. Currently, if a non-admin clicks on your (MZMcBride) tool and there are less than 30 watchers, it comes back and explains "fewer than 30 watchers". If a non-admin clicks on the action=info page instead, for a page with less than 30 watchers, the page watchers line is just gone. So for non-admins looking at MediaWiki:Histlegend for a page with less than 30 watchers, clicking on "Number of watchers", for both options (1) and (2), are just going to confuse them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I like (2), and I suppose this is better than nothing. (It's quite bizarre that the
- MediaWiki:Pageinfo-footer. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Article feedback RFC now being drafted
Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback is now being drafted. Any and all users are encouraged to add a view or polish up the page. The RFC is scheduled to begin on Monday, January 21. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Delate Carson30
Hi can you delate this user account because it is a sockpuppet of me Alameda15 (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- User accounts can't be deleted. You can just stop using it, though. Sandstein 23:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alameda15 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough restriction enforcement is now being discussed
Hi. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding restriction enforcement for User:Rich Farmbrough. Any and all users are encouraged to comment. --Kumioko (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do we typically notify AN about AE threads? I'm confused why this is appearing here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)