→Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal: + generally |
Antidiskriminator (talk | contribs) →Appeal of topic ban: new section |
||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
I am seeking comment at the Education Noticeboard to establish whether Wikipedia administrators ought to be encouraged to manage the use of these tools, in contrast to the current practice in which only "course coordinators" oversee the use of these tools. Please comment at [[Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Proposal_to_allow_administrators_grant_education_extension_userrights]]. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 16:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
I am seeking comment at the Education Noticeboard to establish whether Wikipedia administrators ought to be encouraged to manage the use of these tools, in contrast to the current practice in which only "course coordinators" oversee the use of these tools. Please comment at [[Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Proposal_to_allow_administrators_grant_education_extension_userrights]]. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 16:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Appeal of topic ban == |
|||
A little more than a year ago I was toppic banned ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Antidiskriminator_2 link]). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban. |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive269#Appeal_of_topic_ban This is a link to discussion] regarding my last ban appeal which was closed as "no consensus" because editors who participated in it did not appear to reach consensus to remove or alter the ban. At my last ban appeal I explained how many articles I created in the meantime, how many of them were approved as DYK articles, how many of them were start or C class articles. In the meantime the list is much longer with 69 new articles and 19 DYK approved. I will repeat that I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction. I promise to continue to take a very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:43, 2 August 2015
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 366 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 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 21 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 75 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. |
|
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 53 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)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 52 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 51 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 49 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 39 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 35 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 20 | 29 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 32 | 36 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 53 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:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.
(Initiated 51 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words
(Initiated 24 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 23 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)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 43 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 27 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 26 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?
(Initiated 15 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Moves and page creations by Tobias Conradi socks
The long time banned user has unique ideas of article naming and moves per that. There's a lot of them done over the past three months that need to be checked to see if they should be moved back and also to see if any of the new page creations meet G5 criteria. The newly identified socks are (listed in order of effort required):
- Eldizzino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- TimurKirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- FreightXPress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The relevant SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. Any help in cleaning out the moves that go against WP:NAME and tagging/deleting new creations under G5 would be great. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- We used to have a tool that could nail his socks a lot faster, see [1], but it doesn't seem to be functional. Any idea if we can resurrect that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- That would indeed be very helpful; given his interest of moving geography articles across the globe, many wikiprojects have to spend time cleaning up the mess. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up the mess from the TimurKirov sock, and I'll do all the article edits for Eldizzino (if there isn't an equivalent for mass-rollback for page moves we seriously need to make one). Someone else is going to have to look at the template and category mess, as I'm not as familiar with that. Also, forgot to ping @JaGa: as the creator of the aforementioned tool. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think many of the template issues have been addressed already, at least the ones I looked through on Eldizzino. I've done a bit of the moves of articles, but this perhaps explains some of the article moves pertaining to Argentina, but I believe as usual they've been carried haphazardly causing a lot of issues on incoming links, and I've struggled to make sense of it. —SpacemanSpiff 18:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- At least for now I'll take care of the ones from July, and if no one has gotten around to it I'll work through Eldizzino's from June backwards. Seriously, what the hell is with this guy? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think many of the template issues have been addressed already, at least the ones I looked through on Eldizzino. I've done a bit of the moves of articles, but this perhaps explains some of the article moves pertaining to Argentina, but I believe as usual they've been carried haphazardly causing a lot of issues on incoming links, and I've struggled to make sense of it. —SpacemanSpiff 18:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up the mess from the TimurKirov sock, and I'll do all the article edits for Eldizzino (if there isn't an equivalent for mass-rollback for page moves we seriously need to make one). Someone else is going to have to look at the template and category mess, as I'm not as familiar with that. Also, forgot to ping @JaGa: as the creator of the aforementioned tool. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fascinating. I recently asked Sigma about just such a "move stats" tool, and he said it was not a priority of his. But something like that would be very useful indeed. Pinging @Cyberpower678, MusikAnimal, and Nakon: to see if they can add anything here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Do we know which editor named "Jason" was behind that tool? Are they still active on Wikipedia? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Nevermind! I just figured out that the "Jason" of interest is JaGa!! So, JaGa – any chance your move stats tool can be resurrected on WMFLabs Tools?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)- Hi, if you're looking for something like this to be moved to xTools it is unlikely to happen unless we are given the source code. However, one of us might be up for doing a little development. Is there something we need that the move log can't provide? Was this tool built specifically for this sock? What does it do? — MusikAnimal talk 22:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- It tracks the number of page moves from accounts and sorts them by how old the accounts are. JaGa made it in Seltember 2010 to deal with Tobias Conradi socks, and it was very effective; we nailed several of them (Bogdan Nagachop being one, search ANI with that username and you'll find him carping about the tool for exactly that reason) because they lit up his tool like Diwali, and his MO in that regard hasn't changed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, that discussion is here. Well, there's apparently a new sock in town per the latest SPI report. —SpacemanSpiff 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- It tracks the number of page moves from accounts and sorts them by how old the accounts are. JaGa made it in Seltember 2010 to deal with Tobias Conradi socks, and it was very effective; we nailed several of them (Bogdan Nagachop being one, search ANI with that username and you'll find him carping about the tool for exactly that reason) because they lit up his tool like Diwali, and his MO in that regard hasn't changed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, if you're looking for something like this to be moved to xTools it is unlikely to happen unless we are given the source code. However, one of us might be up for doing a little development. Is there something we need that the move log can't provide? Was this tool built specifically for this sock? What does it do? — MusikAnimal talk 22:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- That would indeed be very helpful; given his interest of moving geography articles across the globe, many wikiprojects have to spend time cleaning up the mess. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone with more familiarity with this case know if an edit filter could help here? Sam Walton (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's mass moves of multiple articles, categories and templates and the subject focus includes geography and scripts. The thing is that the editors interested in the varied permutations of the subject and type of page are very different, so the connection is made after about a thousand pages have been affected. A look at the move log of Eldizzino can help. The one that I'm familiar with is Bogdan Nagachop. These two are probably representative of the behavior IMO. —SpacemanSpiff 19:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, I am afraid an edit filter would not help here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Lord, how many years have we spent undoing the messes of Tobias Conradi? If I get a free moment (some time in August, I've got finals staring me down right now) I'll see if I can resurrect Move Watch. --JaGatalk 19:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @JaGa:I'm active on WMF Labs Tools and am up for doing a bit of development, if you want a hand or someone to take it over. GoldenRing (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now I'm working my way from May forwards, I have no idea what the hell he was trying to accomplish but it's led to complete and total FUBAR. Thankfully I can move things over redirects, or this would be impossible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is actually the problem with this user: It is not clear what the hell he was trying to achieve. Some edits may be good, some may go explicitly against consensus, some are completely unclear, but there is no system whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Uncle G's comment in this discussion in 2010 was fairly demonstrative. Now I'm through the first 500 and all of the ones in July, and I know someone's done June 24; any assistance would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Today's development: In addition to a couple of IPs he's been using here at WP:NCGN, he's been busy at Wikidata, see this.—SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, just wow. With some help I think I finally got everything from the Eldizzino account that wasn't a category move, I'll let people who know categories handle that. Even now it doesn't cease to amaze me how fucking pointless most of these moves were and how much disruption they caused. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Today's development: In addition to a couple of IPs he's been using here at WP:NCGN, he's been busy at Wikidata, see this.—SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Uncle G's comment in this discussion in 2010 was fairly demonstrative. Now I'm through the first 500 and all of the ones in July, and I know someone's done June 24; any assistance would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is actually the problem with this user: It is not clear what the hell he was trying to achieve. Some edits may be good, some may go explicitly against consensus, some are completely unclear, but there is no system whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now I'm working my way from May forwards, I have no idea what the hell he was trying to accomplish but it's led to complete and total FUBAR. Thankfully I can move things over redirects, or this would be impossible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I've put together the beginnings of a tool similar to how Move Watch is described above. Please have a look and let me know how it could be more useful. I'm sure there's lots of tidying up to be done. Perhaps not surprisingly, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights currently appears as an outlier... GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note it currently craps out looking at much more than the last 1000 page moves, apparently because there's a user who has no recorded registration date (?!). The wife is giving me a look like she's wondering what the hell I'm still doing up, so I'll sort it out in the morning. GoldenRing (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- It'd be worth someone having a look at User:OrganicEarth and User:Dakarias. There's no evidence otherwise, but they're new accounts and have... well, they've certainly hit the ground running with their page moves (and editing). I'll notify them of this discussion shortly. GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly don't even know why many edits would be considered being a sock. As I've mentioned in my Userpage, I used to edit with IPs- and I've kept editing just the way I used to after making an account. The only page moves I do are misnamed articles, so I don't think that's suspicious, either. Dakar (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Standard offer for User:Piandme
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why do you believe you should be unblocked? "I strongly believe that in life individuals should be given the chance to prove that they will act in a decent and proper way. This is something I did not do in the past, and is something I deeply regret. If I was given another chance I feel I would be able to show that those past misdemeanour's are not a true reflection of my character, and were instead the result of my foolishness. Since my block was implemented I have had the chance to review my actions, and I completely see that they were completely out of line. I want to be given the opportunity to help the encyclopaedia, and not make other editor's lives more difficult, because that was what I was doing. All editors are really working for the good of the site, and not themselves. I was selfish before, not selfless, but I genuinely feel that this enforced break has informed me of this view."
If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? "When I edited before, I mainly edited Game of Thrones pages, but I don't really see much point in doing that any more. Although I still watch the show, there are many, many editors who edit those pages, with most of them doing an excellent job. I think my time might be better utilised on pages that fewer editors have the appropriate knowledge of. At the moment these pages probably have lower quality levels than most of the Game of Thrones pages, and therefore my time is probably better spent on them."
Therefore, I will mainly focus on articles relating to Contract Bridge. Many of these pages are in need of a severe clean up, and a number have several factual errors. I hope to improve the quality of these. I may also do some work on TV articles, which are in need of improvements. I basically want to focus on articles that are in desperate need for improvements. Many of the Game of Thrones pages are not in need of this, and any improvements that do need to be made are above my level of knowledge at the moment"
Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. "The main reason there is a block in place is because of my sheer stupidity and foolishness. I chose not to listen to many helpful editors suggestions, and chose to do my own thing. I felt these editors were bossing me around, but in reality they were just trying to help.
My main 'crimes' were: SockPuppetry: When I had a block for failing to follow the policy on 3RR I created a Sockpuppet. this was something I continued to do every time I got a block or to to try to support the master account. This is something I do realise was wrong, but at the time I just wanted to edit. I want to follow the rules now, so this will not happen again. Vandalism: I kept using an inappropriate source- a fansite for sourcing. I failed to listen to helpful editors informing me this was wrong, but I kept doing it because the website was one I already visited and it was easy to get the links. I will not do this again."
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? "I'm sorry. I really ask for just one chance, because I know that I won't blow it. One chance, and that should be it ( at least for a very long time). I want to show you that the past was not a true reflection of my character.
The block has given me time to reflect on what I did wrong, an I',mm actually grateful I received it in some ways. It has also given me the opportunity to really get to grips with the site's policies, and I feel in a much better place to edit nowadays. Let me show you these are not just words. Please.
Thank You." Unblock appeal by Piandme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), transcribed with permission from UTRS#14038 by Yunshui for consideration under the standard offer. Yunshui 雲水 11:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yunshui: Does your support imply that a CU check confirmed there has not been socking more recent than January 2015? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've not bothered with a CU - the last confirmed sock I can find is now stale, so there would be nothing to run checkuser against. I had a (fairly cursory, granted) look over the recent history of a few GoT articles (Piandme's main area for sockpuppetry) and didn't see anything that stood out as obviously suspicious, so I'm not aware that there's any evidence of malfeasance since late January. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Has Piandme disclosed all socks? Otherwise how would you know if you have all the confirmed socks? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not to me, but I don't set much store by self-disclosure anyway; if we don't find a sock ourselves and they decide not to disclose it, how are we to know? Whilst self-disclosure is both polite and sometimes helpful, it's too easily gamed to be of use in deciding whether recent sockpuppetry has taken place. Yunshui 雲水 09:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Has Piandme disclosed all socks? Otherwise how would you know if you have all the confirmed socks? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've not bothered with a CU - the last confirmed sock I can find is now stale, so there would be nothing to run checkuser against. I had a (fairly cursory, granted) look over the recent history of a few GoT articles (Piandme's main area for sockpuppetry) and didn't see anything that stood out as obviously suspicious, so I'm not aware that there's any evidence of malfeasance since late January. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm yet undecided, but the fact that when the user was blocked they replied with, literally, "Fuck you, I'll just sock" weighs heavily in my balance. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I was among the admins who had to deal with this person's unrelenting repeat socking comprising dozens of throwaway accounts. Statements like this one or this one reflect a degree of malice that I think is incompatible with productive contributions to a collaborative project. The appeal's wishy-washy generalities, which does not address the aggressive and confrontational nature of Piandme's conduct, and comes only a few months after the sockpuppetry, makes me doubt that a profound change in character has occurred in the interim. Sandstein 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose because the socking is too recent; I know it's been six months (the standard-offer minimum), but combined with their stated attitude I don't think it's time. Miniapolis 21:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose until the editor first discloses and confirms all socks that were used or not used. We only kept finding some because the editor slipped up and disclosed it and that's not a good start going forward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support. You had me at contract bridge. Our articles around that topic could use some improvement. Re-blocks are cheap. HiDrNick! 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Based on the diffs supplied by Sandstein, there is more to the user's previous behavior in adding sourcing to fan sites than simple "vandalism". It seems clear it was a deliberate attempt to antagonise other users, not as Piandme says, simply an easy source to go to. As such, I don't believe what is written above shows a clear understanding of why what he was doing was wrong. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then ask for clarification on your concerns. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
- Then ask for clarification on your concerns. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
- Strong oppose The history of sock puppetry is disturbing, the nature of the sock puppetry is over the line. This user has demonstrated both hostility and bad faith, I think it would be insulting to those he has been abusive towards to allow them back. Asking for "one chance" after being given multiple chances and engaging in block evasion is disingenuous. The user lists sock puppetry and vandalism as their offences but I see no contrition for the general nastiness heaped on other users who disagree. Chillum 14:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, this was not a little bit of sock puppetry. The was extensive sock puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Piandme/Archive. Chillum 14:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal
A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would affect the position of administrator. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- This was already announced once on this page, and archived by the bot. If you want it to stay on the page until the RFC closes, you'll need to fake a timestamp or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note! I looked to see if it had been announced, but didn't find it. I didn't think the bot would archive it so fast. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you do a text search for Kudpung in the latest archive, you'll find it. I believe AN is archived after 48 hours of inactivity, ANI after 24. I just learned about {{Bump}}, I'll used that here: Bumping thread for 30 days. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) .
- Thanks! I did not know about {{bump}}. I did now find the archived notice. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you do a text search for Kudpung in the latest archive, you'll find it. I believe AN is archived after 48 hours of inactivity, ANI after 24. I just learned about {{Bump}}, I'll used that here: Bumping thread for 30 days. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) .
- Just so you guys are aware, this and other relevant community discussions are posted up in the centralized discussion, which is posted at the top of both AN and ANI. See? You can even transclude the {{centralized discussion}} template on your own user or talk page so as to stay up to date on any major community discussions! No problem with stickying this post, just a little PSA. :) Swarm we ♥ our hive 03:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well aware, but thanks. Issue was raised at the RfC that this RfC was not publicized enough. I was attempting to respond to that. Yes, the centralized discussions are posted liberally, but realistically few pay attention to that list. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
On a related point, since I might be a closer on this one: so far, I've generally announced on this page any intention to close RfCs that show up at CENT, mainly for transparency and to try to get other closers to sign on. One problem is that I don't want to interfere with other closers, so I'm not going to do that any more. (Another problem is that someone who wants to be a closer now may not be so enthusiastic when it's time to close.) So, fair warning: if an RfC is at CENT and I'm interested in closing, I'll make a perfunctory statement in the RfC itself, so that a closing process or statement doesn't catch anyone by surprise, but I won't advertise for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Appeal
Hi, I was banned from editing according to January consensus. I read about the Standard Offer, since six months have been passed I would like to appeal my ban to be revoked. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- What do you plan to do to address the concerns raised at the topic ban discussion? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I second Hammersoft's question. I notice you haven't said anything about why you were banned. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 19:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- To echo the above, removing a topic ban is not automatic or a right, it is simply possible after a given period of time upon verification that the problems that caused the ban will not continue. You pretty much need to explain what you did wrong and what you will do right in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Royroydeb: You started this thread, but are not responding to queries in the thread. Yet, you are continuing to edit other areas. If you have any desire to have the topic ban lifted, you need to respond to the above queries. As is, you leave the community no choice but to sustain the topic ban. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- The nasty suspicious bastard in me notes that we just blocked a "brand new editor" who created a slew of articles on non-notable footballers... Guy (Help!) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I created poorly sourced and BLPs in haste with low content. If my ban is revoked, then I will be able to create more BLPs to contribute to DYK. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- At your last appeal, in June, the closing admin suggested waiting at least another 6 months before appealing again. What's changed since then? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
MoveStats tool
I've mentioned it above, but I'll point it out here in case it's got lost: I've created a MoveStats tool at [2]. This originally came up in the context of identifying socks of Tobias Conradi - the goal is to easily identify editors who make lots of page moves very early in their careers. Please leave ideas, feedback and suggestions at User:GoldenRing/MoveStats. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- SPI page for those interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kokuchūkai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Could an admin please have look on latest edits on Kokuchūkai and a possible IBAN-Violation between me and the user by whom latest edits on named article were made? There was only a BOT active in between. Cheers. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, please have a look at the edits. Also maybe block Catflap08 for violating our IBAN multiple times, including here. All of Catflap08's edits to that article were IBAN-violating manual reverts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Either block both of them or neither and close this thread. Catflap had previously made manual reverts of Hijiri's edits, clearly violating the IBAN set in place, but nothing happened even after it was reported. If the recent edits by Hijiri qualify as a violation, then both editors should be blocked. We shouldn't be cherry picking what counts as a violation. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Sturmgewehr88: I don't mind taking a block if Catflap08 gets a block as well, but the problem with both your proposed solutions is that they create a false equivalence (the default state should be the one before any IBAN-violating reverts took place, i.e. the version I restored). They tell Catflap08 that he can continue rolling back the article to his preferred version just because he was the first one to revert after the IBAN. It also ignores Catflap08's showing up suddenly in an unrelated discussion and requesting that I be TBANned, apparently just because he doesn't like me (he clearly hadn't read any of the relevant discussion -- he saw "Hijiri88 topic-ban" in the thread title, clicked "edit" and expressed his support). And your solutions also don't address the fact that Catflap08 insinuated that you and I are neo-Nazis based on our usernames -- horribly offensive personal attacks like this would merit a block whether or not there was already an IBAN in place. His wiki-stalking, personal attacks and dubious aspersions about my motives have become worse since the IBAN's imposition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Is labelled as an essay - but appears to have been originally a proposal for a guideline. It appears, in part, to contradict WP:CANVASS in stating "For more advice and common mistakes to avoid, such as inappropriate posting to individual user talk pages, see Wikipedia:Canvassing" which might be misinterpreted as stating that the CANVASS behavioural guideline is only applicable to notices sent to individuals. Ought this be sent to MfD (though I do not think it should be deleted) or ought it be simply be marked as "failed proposal" or "historical" so that people will not rely on it for any validity in itself? Many thanks. Collect (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I believe it is clear the clause starting with "such as" is just an example of one item covered. Perhaps you can use the essay's talk page to propose an alternate wording? isaacl (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus
Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Turning over control of a userright to administrators - comments requested
Hello. I have participated in in-person Wikipedia outreach for years. Among types of outreach is outreach to universities, which since 2011 has been called the Wikipedia education program.
Admins may be aware that they have had the technical ability to assign Wikipedia education program userrights to any individual, but historically, the granting of these rights has been socially restricted to users with the "course coordinator" userright. I am a course coordinator. In the earlier days of this program there was a collaborative relationship between paid staff at the Wikimedia Foundation or Wiki Education Foundation and the Wikipedia community to partner in assigning these userrights to Wikipedians and non-Wikipedian instructors and staff at universities to use these rights. This partnership has lessened, as as of this month, on English Wikipedia it no longer exists because no staff person at the WMF or Wiki Ed wishes to sustain it.
It is my opinion that as a result of this, it is not possible for the volunteers currently participating in the Wikipedia Education Program to govern the use of these userrights. There might be about ~10 Wikipedia volunteers who know how these rights work, and yet they can be used in some interesting ways that the broader community might wish to learn. The chief right granted is that users of this right can load instances of the mw:Extension:Education Program into English Wikipedia, and thereby track the Wikipedia participation of a group of editors (so as to watch a class of students, or perhaps any group of Wikipedians).
As administrators have always had the technical right to grant these tools, and as no one in particular is currently governing the social oversight of these tools, I am proposing that all Wikipedia administrators feel free to use or grant these tools at their discretion. In my opinion, nothing would go wrong with the userrights being shared with little oversight, except that there is little documentation or guidance available for using them and people mostly have to learn the tools on their own.
I am seeking comment at the Education Noticeboard to establish whether Wikipedia administrators ought to be encouraged to manage the use of these tools, in contrast to the current practice in which only "course coordinators" oversee the use of these tools. Please comment at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Proposal_to_allow_administrators_grant_education_extension_userrights. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Appeal of topic ban
A little more than a year ago I was toppic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.
This is a link to discussion regarding my last ban appeal which was closed as "no consensus" because editors who participated in it did not appear to reach consensus to remove or alter the ban. At my last ban appeal I explained how many articles I created in the meantime, how many of them were approved as DYK articles, how many of them were start or C class articles. In the meantime the list is much longer with 69 new articles and 19 DYK approved. I will repeat that I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction. I promise to continue to take a very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)