HandThatFeeds (talk | contribs) →Returned user User:Everyme: new section |
Al-Andalusi (talk | contribs) →Unexplained removal of template: new section |
||
Line 501: | Line 501: | ||
I'm sure Everyme will take this report as proof that I'm out to get him, just like everyone else. Honestly, that was not my intention at the beginning; I simply wanted to understand the dispute and attempt to clam him down. He seems intent on playing the victim, though, and on disrupting the project until it conforms to his wishes. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
I'm sure Everyme will take this report as proof that I'm out to get him, just like everyone else. Honestly, that was not my intention at the beginning; I simply wanted to understand the dispute and attempt to clam him down. He seems intent on playing the victim, though, and on disrupting the project until it conforms to his wishes. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Unexplained removal of template == |
|||
The issue was raised yesterday by {{user|Misconceptions2}} on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requests for comment on Al-Andalusi's edits and mass tagging, and change of template , is this allowed?]] which was closed with the note: |
|||
:"...Instead of having someone remove all the tags and thus begin a massive edit war, please resolve the concerns on the template's talk page. This thread should be considered closed now". |
|||
That did not happen, instead Misconceptions2 removed every single tag and then another user (William M. Connolley) again removed the tags after being told by Misconceptions2 on his talk page: [[User talk:William M. Connolley#Al-A tagging all expedition/battle pages of Muhammad, advice]] |
|||
I made it clear from the beginning on the talk page (right after I added the tags) that the tagged articles include primary sources with no check for authenticity of the hadith, see [[Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad#Hadith reliability]]. [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 15:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:57, 6 July 2011
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions
- Note: if you wish to comment about Δ and other editors removing images from articles on claimed WP:NFCC grounds, please do so via the link below. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Extremely long conversation moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011. Moonriddengirl (talk)
- Nothing against Moonriddengirl, but if history has shown us anything, it's that the best way to make a complaint or proposal as regards Delta remain "unresolved", it's to dump it in his own personal ANI sub page (which for some inexplicable reason, he gets to personally set the archiving parameters of), which has never achieved anything in its long long existence except sweep his ongoing issues under the carpet. If there is any admin out there with the gumption to do so, please go and close those proposals affirmatively, with a proper summary, addressing all concerns & comments. I shouldn't have to say, but on past experience I need to, this shouldn't be an admin who has commented in the discussion either way, or has an identifiable undue interest in NFCC as a topic of debate either way. And while your at it, will one of you please, at the third time of asking, go and close the well overdue Rfc on banknote images at Talk:Non-free content, because Delta is still seeking to claim even in the backdrop of ANI threads about is his behaviour in NFCC enforcement, that the consenus on such things is unsurprisingly, how he wants to assert it is, rather than how it proveably is through actual discussion of the actual issue, by editors other than his select band of self appointed NFCC experts/enforcers. To leave these sorts of things unclosed when Delta's chosen approach continues to be a cause of such division, is frankly inexcusable. And despite what is claimed there, in circumstances like banknotes articles, how much is 'too much' as regards WP:NFCC, is an issue for en:wiki consensus alone, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Foundation or its resolution, unless or until they make a specific comment on specific usage situations, which they never have, and never will, for understandable reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously...we finally get a clear majority on a proposal and we have someone derail the conversation with an improper close, and then I come back and someone has moved it off the noticeboard to a subpage. If we'd let the conversation go we might have actually got a resolution now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't this need a future date to keep it from scrolling off?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- It might now. It didn't when I did it, though, because I used three tildes. :) MickMacNee, sorry if this squelches conversation in any way; it's not my intention, but 300,000 bytes on ANI is just too much. :/ It was over 2/3rds of the page. Crossmr, it's standard to remove conversations that overwhelm this page; that's why the instructions for doing so are right there at the top, under "How to use this page". --Moonriddengirl (talk)
- I've moved the latest comment about the situation to the subpage. I will be moving any conversation that belongs at that subpage to it, unless there is consensus to restore the whole 300,000+ bytes to ANI. It's inappropriate to fracture it and have conversation in two places. Moonriddengirl (talk)
- I'd suggest that this was a sub-optimal but perfectly understandable response. Yes, the page was getting huge, and was totally domination this page. However, as has been noted above, past indications are that subpaging leaves only the "partisan warriors" involved. (I'm not just talking about pages realting to Betacommand, but other editors perceived-by-some-as-problematic who've been "subpaged" as well.) The topic ban discussion was preceding independent of the squabbling, I'd like to see that section restored. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also, can we agree on some naming convention or something to make these easier to find/organise? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- If consensus emerges to support the now 354,000 bytes of this conversation to take over ANI, then, certainly, we should restore the entire conversation. Restoring a single section would be a bad idea, as it does not give a complete overview of the conversation to anybody stumbling upon it now. But, respectfully, if ANI has never been able to resolve issues with Δ, then perhaps ANI is not the best forum for it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I wish to highlight this person aswell, I have tried to come to middle ground he just point blanks reuses, I have even moved the pic and cut them back to how there were done for the PAST 18 MONTH, so either he off his head of wiki have never cared before? I have stated in talk page and each pic talk description aswell, yet there not good enough, I have state there needed to better explain page, I also found its DAM cheek him he the one that in the edit war AND also placing the warning to me, Judge and jury?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs)
- I think we need a bit of organisation here. We seem to have various Delta/Beta subpages spread out. Heck, the Delta/Beta archive pages aren't even all subpages of the same parent. I totally agree with moving all this stuff to different pages, so the rest of ANI can flourish, but the way it is at the moment is all very confusing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorsal Axe (talk • contribs)
Previous subpages
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 1
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 2
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 3
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 4
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 5
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 6
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry
Reverting of subpage
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Subpaging. In support of the principle above (which I objected to!) I attempted to move the sanction-lifting proposal to the subpage, but was reverted by Beta. I'm cross-posting both to add the timestamp, also because I consider this an "incident" and I'm requesting adminstrator action: Either move the new proposal to the subpage or bring the old one back, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think it was highly inappropriate for the subject of this ongoing ANI thread to fracture the conversation by starting a new section at AN, and I have said as much at AN. Since he reverted your subpaging his new thread and since there is some disagreement from evidently involved (I haven't had time to check deeply), I've transcluded the subpage to AN so that everyone can see the entire history of that conversation. (ETA: Had to reduce that to a link, as an e-mail I received informs me that it is creating load issues...which is why it was subpaged to begin with.) Moonriddengirl (talk)
Wikilove
HI folks,
Just an FYI/heads-up so that you're ready. The tech team just informed me that they intend to fully deploy Wikilove (see this blog post for more information) to logged in users of the English Wikipedia on Thursday. You can imagine, we expect there to be some minor abuses of this tool... they're working on using the bad image list to handle some of that but some of our folks are... ahem, "creative"... and I suppose we'll see some unexpected use. You might keep your eyes open, and treat them as you usually would treat inappropriate comments. :-)
Best,
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- For those who aren't aware, it will be implemented starting 29 June. Hopefully, it will rekindle some appreciation toward those editors who normally go unnoticed or underappreciated, and keep them motivated towards making the encyclopedia better (which I think a few of us could do a better job of appreciating others' efforts, myself included). –MuZemike 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This touchy-feely stuff cannot possibly be for real. Is this story from The Onion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ewww. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is a nifty and adorable idea. When do we deploy Wikihate? Or Wikimeh, for those situations when it's difficult to work out whether someone's being a jackass or a saint? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a time and a place for features that don't really add to the experience. I guess this is the Facebooking of Wikipedia. Having to edit raw text in a window like this instead of a realtime, rich editor? How's that a great experience? Its sad to see when Internet companies get sidetracked trying to compete on style when a lot of times substance is the real desire. Look at all the horrible Myspace pages there were. Not much style there, but it filled a niche that people wanted. Easy editing of a web-based presence. -- Avanu (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So, this is one of those idiotic nifty new features the developers have come up with, that we have to choose to go opt out of instead of choosing to opt into? And, how much will this slow down and screw up the servers like happened a few months ago when we were all automatically enrolled in the "email me when someone posts on my talk" feature. Makes me contemplate a month long wikibreak just to avoid that hassle again.Heiro 03:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
When will the Wikihate button be rolled out? Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hate Here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Praising other's edits by clicking on a button and dropping a template is indeed about as deep as clicking "like" on Facebook--a hollow act producing a formulaic compliment (even if they can be tweaked whimsically) that requires no investment and is therefore meaningless. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal interaction does a lot to get people into things. The experiences of working with Mila on a waterdrop photo, RexxS on a table, FS on an image mod, or Counting Crows fellow on footnotes were very positive and led to more interaction. Mostly to my benefit, but they've had fun too. I think that bright orange bar does more than anything else to draw people into working together. But you have to have a personalized message with like thoughts and stuff afterwards. I mean, I'm a newbie so I still like barnies and all (don't stop) and I never got a welcome plate of cookies. But, honest, the interaction with shmartiepants people like Wehwalt and Malleus is more exciting than some random love icon.
P.s. Of course this could be a total "doh" moment if the Wikilove thing is not what I think it is, but I'm worried, it will be lame.)
P.s.s. I claim priority on having the first friending system here at Wiki.
TCO (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've test driven the system; it's fun. It's not a random love icon, but rather a tool to simplify users placing barnstars or friendly graphic-laden notes on the talk pages of other users when they choose to do so. There are preloaded image options or you can substitute your own. People who are not the type to attract cookies to begin with are probably not likely to see much difference with the tool, unless their friends enjoy tweaking their noses. :) Deep interaction? Not inherently, no, but likely to be pleasing to some and harmless if taken in moderation. :D (Just the thing, Drmies, for decorating a nursery.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- We have editors that need a simpler tool to be able to place barnstars on another contributors page...? Perhaps it is best, then, that we distract them from the content pages with these frivolities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think you forgot to harumph. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- We have editors that need a simpler tool to be able to place barnstars on another contributors page...? Perhaps it is best, then, that we distract them from the content pages with these frivolities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. A well intentioned idea that somehow manages to be implemented in a way that is inappropriate, unsettling, unattractive, juvenile, condescending and counterproductive all at the same time. Is this a first for Wikipedia ? And when does the 2011 Fundraising Appeal start ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Goodness, why not (speaking to the grumpy ones here)? Our most widely used automated tools are for slapping new users with 6 levels of warnings for about 25 possible violations of Wikipedia policies. A tool that's used for expressing appreciation? Gasp! zOMG! Could this be a threat to the Grumpy Old Boy's Club on Wikipedia? Probably not, but one can hope.... First Light (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm more irritated by the fact that every time they roll out one of these myspacey/facebookie things, they default include everyone. I would not have even known about this if not for this thread, as I don't usually follow the developers or village pump. As I mentioned above, the last time they rolled out a new function like this, it caused serious server lag for almost a month, made it difficult to edit, and caused a lot of scratched heads as the vast majority of us did not know what was going on. I suspect the same thing will start happening again in a few days. Ands speaking of the Old Boys club, does anyone know if this is supposed to be one of the new ways of attracting more female editors?Heiro 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Does this mean Esperanaza is coming back? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Discussion like this was probably good inspiration for this essay. --causa sui (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is intended to have us shove barnstars or other stuff down others throats (especially if they didn't deserve it). I mean, I know I can do a better job myself in showing recognition to those editors who do the right things. Perhaps I'm just saying to give it a chance and see what results from it. I really don't see how this can hurt the editorship of the encyclopedia or likewise move us any closer to re-establishing Esperanza (as one pointed out above, and also where "WikiLove" originally came from). –MuZemike 18:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Quick, better check "exclude me from feature experiments" in your preferences. If it actually does anything. MER-C 02:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't Twinkle-style automation of things like barnstars defeat the point a little bit? A barnstar is as close to a pat on the back as one can get on the Internet, and this feels a bit like an automated back-patter. That one has to manually edit the page and paste the code is part of its charm. However, I can see some merit in the other wikilove templates, especially having a consolidated list of WikiBooze templates (which I suppose would be handy if you're WikiDrunk!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I was the cynical one. Adding some positive stuff to talk pages is something to be worried about? Wow. The foundation realizes that it needs to adapt to stay relevant. I disagree with the foundation on many things but this isn't one of them. If anyone else here actually took the survey (wasn't it only like 5k or did I read it wrong?) you would see that the goal is to make radical changes. They will end up ticking most editors off and a fuzzy kitten or a tasty looking beer are the actual good things. But if you really want to fix the problem: get rid of templates to address the BITE issue. If you think that sounds ridiculous you should hear my idea to get more female editors. Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)Shouldn't this be at the community portal or the administrator noticeboard, this is for incidents. Well, its deployed. I would like to be able to opt-out though. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I consider the deployment an incident. You can opt out of "showing WikiLove" (i.e. display of the obnoxious heart symbol) by unchecking the box under My preferences -> Editing -> Labs features. If you want to make it clear that you don't want to become the victim of "WikiLove" you can use my userbox, for example (see below), but there is no way to really prevent it. Hans Adler 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Great April Fools' Day contribution, only 3 months late
Wow. This is a great April Fools Day joke, but why couldn't you wait another 9 months? Making it easier to leave impersonal, semi-automated messages with intimate/sexual overtones. And there is a setting for not using this option, but no setting for preventing to be WikiRaped that way. And of course the selling point is that supposedly it will make Wikipedia a more welcoming kindergarten brothel collaborative encyclopedia. Hans Adler 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, it's a very versatile "tool" that can even be used for autoeroticism.
- On a more serious note, I can understand why strategic attempts at improving our communication habits are not discussed widely before experimental implementation, but if you want to prepare such things sneakily you really need to think things through to make up for the lack of community vetting. Hans Adler 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Some other reactions above look as if there might be more general interest in my new userbox {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiRape}} {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiLove}}. Hans Adler 22:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) [edited after rename]
- While I may be being a humourless curmudgeon here, I'd like to see the word "rape" thrown around a bit less casually, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. In my defence, I couldn't help reading some of the recently leaked Arbcom emails, and as a result wasn't merely pissed that the childish "barnstar" rubbish is getting official status now – but this "WikiLove" stuff also reminded me of the behaviour of the creepy predator/stalker who features in one of those threads. Hans Adler 06:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- While I may be being a humourless curmudgeon here, I'd like to see the word "rape" thrown around a bit less casually, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any chance of moving it to a title less likely to cause offense, then? You know you'll be asked to do it eventually, so better sooner than later for the sake of dramavoidance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's nice to check in and see that Wikipedia has decided to answer the question of whether it's an MMPORG or a social networking site in the affirmative... to both. Should do wonders for attracting and retaining teenagers and adolescents, the lifeblood of the enterprise.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
RFC?
As there seems to be a little resistance to this tool can we run this thourgh the RFC to gain community consensus on whether to deploy this tool or not? Clearly any fairly major interface changes need to be approved by the editing community at large before deployment - especially if controversial. --Errant (chat!) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- WMF is not likely to care about an RFC for a feature which hasn't even been deployed yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- And for that, you get... a barnstar! It is quite a nifty little gadget and very easy to use. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- TBH the only objection I have to it is the name is puke worthy and it is misrepresented as something to increase editor retention (which any seasoned vet knows comes nowhere near the issue). But it seems this is controversial - and I agree the current implementation (the heart and the terminology is "Facebook like"). --Errant (chat!) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- In case you guys are interested, you may want to know that pretty much everything about the extension is configurable on-wiki (by editing MediaWiki:WikiLove.js). If en.wiki doesn't like Kittens, you can replace them with bags of coal or whatever. You can even change the heart icon to something different if you like. It's totally up to the consensus of the community as to how you actually want to use this tool. (You can also configure it personally in your vector.js or monobook.js.) Wouldn't it be more useful to start an RFC on what changes you want to make to WikiLove? Unlike most interface features, you don't actually have to ask the developers to implement any changes. Any admin can do it locally. The configuration documentation for the extension is somewhat minimal right now, but I will be expanding it significantly over the next few days. Just let me know if you have any questions about it in the meantime. This is supposed to be a tool for the community to own and use however they want. If you want to replace the Food and drinks with WikiProject invitation templates or whatever, that's fine with the Foundation. I think the only thing the Foundation would object to is replacing all the items with warning templates. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the entire idea is silly. It's very easy to annoy someone by templating them with a warning message. Making someone feel welcome by templating them is much harder to achieve. I, for example, feel offended when I get such silliness. If it comes from someone I haven't seen before, then I'd wonder if it's a sockpuppet trying to brown nose me or someone who genuinely feels thankful for something or other and seriously thinks it's appropriate to show this by templating rather than writing a personal message. If it comes from someone I know well it would be even worse.
- This project is full of people who are semi-literate in the sense that they don't really like reading or writing more than a sentence or two, and prefer templating and reverting. By offering these silly new templates you are pushing things even further in that direction. I cannot believe that the kind of people who think it is socially acceptable to leave automated "kittens" and "barnstars" on other people's talk pages are more likely to contribute well-written text to the encyclopedia than those who don't want to be associated with this infantility. In fact I expect the opposite.
- Whenever a bureaucracy makes up a target such as "make the editor community grow again" there is the danger that one then tries to optimise a single parameter without keeping the others in mind. I am not sure why we need growth in the first place as we are moving from construction of the encyclopedia towards maintenance mode. But if we do need growth, then we need growth by encyclopedia writers, not by naive social networkers who can be pleased with the push of a button. It's true that this project has too much negativity, but that cannot be balanced with feel-good superficiality. Hans Adler 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hans Adler is correct in most of his points, this seems geared to the social networking happy-talk crowd, when what we really need to attract are the writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers of each oncoming generation, and, at the same time, to make things better for those who do those tasks now, so we don't lose them from burn-out and disinclination to participate any longer. Those kind of people aren't going to come here because of WikiLove, they're more likely to be repulsed by it.
Personally, I don't object to people expressing to me their appreciation in whatever form it comes, but a sincere "Thank you" is just as good, and appreciated just as much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely. Template the experts with kittens often enough and they will probably leave. —Kusma (t·c) 08:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hans is correct. A couple of years of kittening each other will change the community from here to write the encyclopedia to here to socialize, and discussions about issues will resolved on the basis of I like it. What editors need is a light-weight mechanism that stops unhelpful behavior before the people concerned learn bad habits, not cute decorations. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hans Adler is correct in most of his points, this seems geared to the social networking happy-talk crowd, when what we really need to attract are the writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers of each oncoming generation, and, at the same time, to make things better for those who do those tasks now, so we don't lose them from burn-out and disinclination to participate any longer. Those kind of people aren't going to come here because of WikiLove, they're more likely to be repulsed by it.
- I find the assumption that the next generation of "writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers" will be put off by occasional kitten images amusing, given that the majority of the such people that I've encountered may even devote a whole day of their blogging to kitten pictures. (Of course, none of these people edit Wikipedia and often cite the unfriendly environment of crabby, entrenched editors as the reason.) The next generation—and I'm talking about the recently degreed, not the recently toilet trained—are social networkers. If you find this sort of thing unpleasant, you can put a message at the top of your talk page and tell any violators to get off your lawn. Danger (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there's social networking and then there's social networking. Certainly a generational change has occured which means that almost everyone will use social networking in the future, but there are those who live and die by it, and those who use it simply as a matter of course. There are already some number of people editing Wikipedia who appear to be here not to edit and improve the encyclopedia, but for whatever social interactions they can get out of it (limited though that may be), and we really don't need to encourage more to join, since what they contribute is essentially overhead and not content or logistical support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sincerely doubt that the people you refer to are going to be abandoning Facebook for Wikipedia based on the creation of the WikiLove extension. I mean, Facebook has Farmville, which is far more entertaining than a kitten template or two. :) It is a matter of encouraging established editors to stay. How many prolific editors have we lost in the past 6 months because they've felt that their contributions are not appreciated–or actively denigrated? Danger (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that retention of valuable editors is the more important problem to solve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sincerely doubt that the people you refer to are going to be abandoning Facebook for Wikipedia based on the creation of the WikiLove extension. I mean, Facebook has Farmville, which is far more entertaining than a kitten template or two. :) It is a matter of encouraging established editors to stay. How many prolific editors have we lost in the past 6 months because they've felt that their contributions are not appreciated–or actively denigrated? Danger (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there's social networking and then there's social networking. Certainly a generational change has occured which means that almost everyone will use social networking in the future, but there are those who live and die by it, and those who use it simply as a matter of course. There are already some number of people editing Wikipedia who appear to be here not to edit and improve the encyclopedia, but for whatever social interactions they can get out of it (limited though that may be), and we really don't need to encourage more to join, since what they contribute is essentially overhead and not content or logistical support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I find the assumption that the next generation of "writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers" will be put off by occasional kitten images amusing, given that the majority of the such people that I've encountered may even devote a whole day of their blogging to kitten pictures. (Of course, none of these people edit Wikipedia and often cite the unfriendly environment of crabby, entrenched editors as the reason.) The next generation—and I'm talking about the recently degreed, not the recently toilet trained—are social networkers. If you find this sort of thing unpleasant, you can put a message at the top of your talk page and tell any violators to get off your lawn. Danger (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- It might be a smidgen more useful if the "create your own" feature actually worked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The best reward I get on Wikipedia is when I'm told my work is appreciated. Just about every time that's happened, it's been with plain text and a custom message. When it takes actual thought and effort to thank me, that's when it counts. That's also why I always leave custom messages, even when I deploy barnstars. I've gone as far as to create custom stars and custom templates too (as anyone who voted at the FS main page proposal knows). Making "Thank you" into empty words is going to make Wikipedia worse, not better. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a stupid waste of space. Can someone post whatever javascript/css needs to go where to get rid of it at my usertalk? I'm using monobook. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Any chance of someone making an opt out for this ridiculous feature? I always thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, but I guess now it's Facebook. --B (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- How to disable WikiLove (it's in the editing prefs). Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ummmm, this may be kinda obvious - but if you don't like it, don't use it! And you could always have a message or something at the top of your user talk page to say "No Automated WikiLove, please!" Personally, I'm open to kind comments and so on, no matter how many keystrokes they require - provided that I've deserved them :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea, and Hans Adler is absolutely right. We seriously do NOT want to do anything to encourage the idea that being a Wikipedian is about distributing barnstars and cookies and pictures of fluffy kittens so that you can make "friends" who will send them to you and you can add to your trophy page. It's something to be able to turn it off, but I would support an RFC on the idea of opting out of it for the whole site. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would certainly oppose any attempt to force others to opt out of it. Yes, this is social-networking-website-like. It's pretty far from ideal, but it's also a genuine attempt to make Wikipedia a less hostile, less contentious, and less fractious place to be. The intention is to foster a pleasant and collegial working environment.
Naturally, there will be problems. One expects the various factions (pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, ARS, etc.) to start awarding each other barnstars in a kind of circle jerk, and to use them as victory celebrations when a counterfactional editor gets sanctioned or topic-banned. One expects that there will be editors who find excuses to be offended when offered a small token of respect. And it is silly and facebook-like. But, we need to increase the number of positive interactions between editors, or at least, find some way to reduce the number of interactions that are negative and hostile. Particularly for newer editors.—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- This seems more appropriate as a gadget than a MediaWiki extension. If we convert this to a gadget we can get rid of the stupid name and heart and more importantly, make it opt-in rather than opt-out/forced down our throats. (I'm highly allergic to cats.) MER-C 03:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree that it sounds like a pointless feature. I wish the devs would do some more useful stuff, like come up with a better "diff" that has a special color for moved but unaltered text (or at least doesn't misalign so often), or come up with a display for categories that looks as pretty and compact as the custom templates... Wnt (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see goal but it can be impossible to reach it using interface methods, I just received nice thanks (with barnstar) on my home wiki - without any kittenlove extensions (any action looking like result of wikilove script will be reverted on my talk page - as childish and irritating, I see nothing pleasant in scripted "Thanks, kitten!"). I think that it will be better to rather add LT (development stopped) and WYSIWYG editor (no development AFAIK) - better interface can really help Bulwersator (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I like it
Bunch of grinches you lot! For those of us not too hot on markup this is a great way of saying thanks, and it doesn't have to be impersonal at all - one can still put a good deal of thought into a message. The convenience is a good thing, really. Egg Centric 09:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- As do I. I appreciate when others compliment my work and contributions. Also, I have been trying to make a tool to create wikilove templates, {{Blank WikiLove}}. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion either way ... my only comment is that I would prefer to have the tab opt-in, rather than adding it by default and making it opt-out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I like it too. Some change of pace from the usual venom on talk pages. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Daniel Case
The earlier part of this thread is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#Daniel Case.
As I understand it the appeal hierarchy is
- Administrators
- Arbitration Committee
- Community
Once the community gives its decision the case is closed because there is no higher court. So it can't be taken back to the Arbitration Committee. I note that you've been editing under another name, although there is no reference to that in your userspace. Are you aware of the rule that an involved administrator should not block but leave it to someone else to make the call? Please explain the relationship (if any) between the Mediation Cabal (which you are involved with) and the Arbitration Committee. Are you speaking in an official capacity or as a private citizen?
This is a matter of general interest, so it would be win - win all round if Errant simply answered the question.
To D Macks: You don't darn a sock by pushing the delete button. You get needle and thread and do something constructive. Why is it always administrators who choose the lazy option? Don't the silent majority get a chance to air their views on Wikipedia? 94.195.195.252 (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like some outside administrative eyes to take a look at Milikguay (talk · contribs). He's basically a BLP-violation machine, editing predominantly to advance an agenda of AIDS denialism. At Etienne de Harven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), he continues to insert completely unacceptable sources into BLP (for example, sidasante.com [a European AIDS-denialist website] and YouTube clips from an AIDS-denialist conference). On top of edit-warring to reinsert these BLP violations (despite numerous prior warnings about proper sourcing), he's taken to accusing me of defamation (e.g. here; see edit summary). I think this is well past grounds for an indefinite block on at least 3 grounds (agenda-driven POV-pushing, egregious BLP violations despite numerous warnings, recurrent edit-warring, and legal threats), but as I'm involved I would like some outside review. MastCell Talk 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- You may wish to notify WP:FTN over the content issues as that kind of thing is their bailiwick. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not too concerned about the content issues; they'll be sorted out. I'm concerned about the incessant BLP violations - that's an issue where we should be able to expect rapid administrative intervention - and, I suppose, the not-so-veiled legal threat as well. MastCell Talk 00:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- You may wish to notify Monsieur De Harven personally, if you like: (http://rethinkingaids.com.93.seekdotnet.com/Content/TheBoard/tabid/60/Default.aspx), you can get many surprises. There you can find his own e-mail. And you can erase my Wiki account, buddy, if that's what you want. No problem with me. I'm very sure I've done nothing wrong. (Ooops, perhaps I did something wrong, I've added an article which was accepted by Belgium Portal of Living People, where the guy is a prominent AIDS Denialist, and pioneer in retrovirology!!) But as I always say, let's keep calm and carry on with this. Don't worry, I'm not like William Connolly (with all due respect to him). But if you're trying to find a scapegoat with me, go ahead!! I have no problem with it. Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- He has been blocked for one week by GWH. Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The totality of the picture of long-term mild disruption, increasing BLP focuses, the mild legal threat, and the response above after an earlier 12 hr block yesterday, all added up to disruption in my review. I am hopeful that they can stop this now, hence not having indeffed with this response, but I would not be surprised if they don't change course. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- You did not mention that he violated an ArbCom topic ban [1] twice.[2] [3] Mathsci (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- In addition there appear to be problems with images he has uploaded. Here for example is the website of James Shapiro which has an identical image to the one that Milikguay uploaded here File:James A. Shapiro, phD.jpg. Similarly the image of Etienne de Harven File:DeHarven.jpg was taken from here. The licenses claim that both images were taken by Milikguay which does not seem possible. Mathsci (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- You did not mention that he violated an ArbCom topic ban [1] twice.[2] [3] Mathsci (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The totality of the picture of long-term mild disruption, increasing BLP focuses, the mild legal threat, and the response above after an earlier 12 hr block yesterday, all added up to disruption in my review. I am hopeful that they can stop this now, hence not having indeffed with this response, but I would not be surprised if they don't change course. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- He has been blocked for one week by GWH. Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- You may wish to notify Monsieur De Harven personally, if you like: (http://rethinkingaids.com.93.seekdotnet.com/Content/TheBoard/tabid/60/Default.aspx), you can get many surprises. There you can find his own e-mail. And you can erase my Wiki account, buddy, if that's what you want. No problem with me. I'm very sure I've done nothing wrong. (Ooops, perhaps I did something wrong, I've added an article which was accepted by Belgium Portal of Living People, where the guy is a prominent AIDS Denialist, and pioneer in retrovirology!!) But as I always say, let's keep calm and carry on with this. Don't worry, I'm not like William Connolly (with all due respect to him). But if you're trying to find a scapegoat with me, go ahead!! I have no problem with it. Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have issued a WP:BLPSE warning; if violating behaviour continues then sanctions can be carried out. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
billinghurst has closed multiple similar RMs
Can an admin be “uninvolved” when he has already closed multiple similar move requests? This is from Talk:Côte d'Ivoire:
Date | Requested move | Closer | Result |
---|---|---|---|
January 2007 | Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast | Patstuart | “The result of the debate was ‘’no consensus" |
June 2010 | Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast | billinghurst | “The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved” “If you think that this decision is in error, and it requires a larger approach then please look to Wikipedia:Requests for comment to make it an holistic argument." |
July 2010 | Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast | billinghurst | “aborting this discussion in this format.” “the means to take this further was more holistic with regard to looking to have a Wikipedia:Request for comment” |
July 2011 | Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast | billinghurst | “The only reasonable means to have this changed is to do it holistically and via an RFC." |
I respectfully request that billinghurst be admonished not to close any future discussions on Talk:Côte d'Ivoire, or any other Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast related discussions. Kauffner (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:UNINVOLVED, so long as his prior interaction with the article was administrative, it does not count as involved. I haven't checked his history so I don't know if this is the case, however if all he's done is perform admin duties then he is pretty much doing what an admin does. Noformation Talk 08:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- This standard would seem to be an invented one. The relevant guideline is: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community to include...disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." The past closings were certainly disputed by various editors at the time. Not only that, but the fact that I am disputing this closing is by itself a reason for him not to be involved in this issue in the future. Kauffner (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to have been involved; their actions were all administrative, not a mixture of administrative and !voting.
- (slight conflict of interest: I opposed the move. The OP supported the requested move and seems unhappy that the consensus didn't go their way. I'm surprised that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY hasn't been cited yet). bobrayner (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Billinghurst has already admitted earlier that he isn't impartial in this matter[6]. I don't know how he then decides that he has suddenly become impartial enough again to close this discussion. In best case this to me seems like bad judgment, if he wanted to argue for an RFC, he should have just entered it as a comment. In the worst case it's abuse of admin powers. Also, it's not clear to me that an RFC was actually necessary, I think enough parties were involved in the RM discussion to make a decision about what to call the country across all of Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there's the smoking gun. An involved admin closed this discussion, it clearly needs to be reversed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Reversed" as in reopening the (at time of close) 13 day old debate for a few more days before another Admin closes it since it was closed as "No consensus". Or "Reverse" as in move it forth with? A little clarity please. - J Greb (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- It should be reversed as in reopened as the close was improper due to the admin being involved. As to how an uninvolved admin should close it, well, that's up to him or her. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Reversed" as in reopening the (at time of close) 13 day old debate for a few more days before another Admin closes it since it was closed as "No consensus". Or "Reverse" as in move it forth with? A little clarity please. - J Greb (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there's the smoking gun. An involved admin closed this discussion, it clearly needs to be reversed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Wiki has over a thousand admins. Just sheer coincidence that the same one keeps "aborting" and closing using the same peculiar "take it to an RFC" technique. Nothing to see here. Move along. The closings happen while people are still voting. This makes sure that not just anyone has the opportunity to close. Kauffner (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT again and again ad nauseaum. It's the country's name people, leave it the frak alone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- It would be surprising if he/she has it watchlisted. That doesn't necessarily make them involved. BTW the 4th move above is another link to the third move. I guess you intended to link to Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#Requested move. BTW even if billinghurst is involved his/her recommendation to use WP:RFC seems a sound one considering the history and a glance thru the comments, I'm not sure why it hasn't been followed. Having said that I doubt consensus will be reached for a move even with a WP:RFC Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Probably because there was an RFC about 6 months ago that had no consensus to change ... pretty much the identical arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'd have closed that last RM as a reasonable consensus for move based on the arguments made (although it is close support wise); but there seems no issue with billinghurst coming back to close discussions over this timespan, especially as his closing comment makes a solid point about it affecting more than one page. I suppose it is a rational argument that a new admin should be involved each time to make sure fresh eyes are on the consensus - but it's not a deal breaker. --Errant (chat!) 12:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Without assuming bad faith on the part of billinghurst, I suggest that admins generally avoid closing discussions that they have closed before. In situations where it is necessary to determine consensus, a truly uninvolved admin should be equally able to pass on a discussion as they are able to close it. Given that he/she has closed it before, I'd say the balance has tilted ever so slightly toward involved that they should not close it. If the same uninvolved admin has closed the same discussion three times in the pass, then the wise, no-brainer if I may, course of action is to move on to the next RM discussion (and there are many waiting to be closed). --rgpk (comment) 16:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with RegentsPark and will add that in this case an active discussion was closed just hours after another comment was made. I request that the discussion be re-opened until discussion actually subsides and a truly uninvolved admin closes it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- It would certainly be more seemly for billinghurst to let somebody else do it. Looking at his edits, he does not seem to be somebody who (as Regentspark assumes) spends his time at WP:RM and has happened to close this question several times. Instead, he is an admin who watches this page and has several times imposed his desire (no move without an RFC, as if an RFC would be likely to show any other result on a yes/no question) on the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- What is the difference, really, between a re-opened move discussion and an RfC? Either way, Wikipedians talk about what the article ought to be called, and either way, a decision will have to be made based on the discussion. Why fuss over what it's called? All this time spent talking about red tape would be better spent organizing and documenting the best case for both titles, and that's true whether or not the most recent move request is "re-opened". When did we become so bureaucratic? Just do things that need to be done, and we'll get somewhere. Stop worrying so much about rules and labels. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- That this was not a re-opened move discussion, nor isomorphic to one. The way to achieve that would have been to use {{relist}} - or to leave it alone. Billinghurst did neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- It would certainly be more seemly for billinghurst to let somebody else do it. Looking at his edits, he does not seem to be somebody who (as Regentspark assumes) spends his time at WP:RM and has happened to close this question several times. Instead, he is an admin who watches this page and has several times imposed his desire (no move without an RFC, as if an RFC would be likely to show any other result on a yes/no question) on the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with RegentsPark and will add that in this case an active discussion was closed just hours after another comment was made. I request that the discussion be re-opened until discussion actually subsides and a truly uninvolved admin closes it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Without assuming bad faith on the part of billinghurst, I suggest that admins generally avoid closing discussions that they have closed before. In situations where it is necessary to determine consensus, a truly uninvolved admin should be equally able to pass on a discussion as they are able to close it. Given that he/she has closed it before, I'd say the balance has tilted ever so slightly toward involved that they should not close it. If the same uninvolved admin has closed the same discussion three times in the pass, then the wise, no-brainer if I may, course of action is to move on to the next RM discussion (and there are many waiting to be closed). --rgpk (comment) 16:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'd have closed that last RM as a reasonable consensus for move based on the arguments made (although it is close support wise); but there seems no issue with billinghurst coming back to close discussions over this timespan, especially as his closing comment makes a solid point about it affecting more than one page. I suppose it is a rational argument that a new admin should be involved each time to make sure fresh eyes are on the consensus - but it's not a deal breaker. --Errant (chat!) 12:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Probably because there was an RFC about 6 months ago that had no consensus to change ... pretty much the identical arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What's the argument against just having an RfC, and calling the most recent move discussion the beginning of it? Doesn't this get us ALL where we want to be, most quickly? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not if Billinghurst closes it again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Was that sarcasm? Is that helpful?
I'm talking an RfC, not a move request. RfC's aren't little forms you fill out and if it works, someone closes it in your favor. They're big-ass conversations where we try to learn what the community's consensus is on some major question. You're seriously coming out against such a conversation? Why? What's wrong with knowing as broad a possible sample of community opinion as we can obtain? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sarcasm aside, the point you're missing is that this isn't a question of coming out for or against an RfC. Rather, it is a question of whether an admin who repeatedly closes a consensus forming request the same way is truly uninvolved or not. pmanderson's comment gets to the heart of the issue. If that admin is involved, then what's to stop him or her from closing the RfC the same way? Nothing ever gets resolved when there is the appearance of involvement on the part of the closer, however contentious or not the discussion may be. --rgpk (comment) 02:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- No. I'm not missing that point. I think that point deserves to be left behind, and totally eclipsed by the point of what the article should be called and why. We could either argue about red tape, and rules, and propriety, and admin abuse... or we could table all that shit and write an encyclopedia already. Guess which one I'm in favor of.
I grant every single point about the closure being inappropriate, and I STILL say, why not just have an RfC on an issue that clearly deserves an RfC? What have we got against broad community input?
Again: I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONTESTED CLOSURE. I support getting the hell over it, and working on the REAL issue at hand. Let's have an RfC already. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- No. I'm not missing that point. I think that point deserves to be left behind, and totally eclipsed by the point of what the article should be called and why. We could either argue about red tape, and rules, and propriety, and admin abuse... or we could table all that shit and write an encyclopedia already. Guess which one I'm in favor of.
- Sarcasm aside, the point you're missing is that this isn't a question of coming out for or against an RfC. Rather, it is a question of whether an admin who repeatedly closes a consensus forming request the same way is truly uninvolved or not. pmanderson's comment gets to the heart of the issue. If that admin is involved, then what's to stop him or her from closing the RfC the same way? Nothing ever gets resolved when there is the appearance of involvement on the part of the closer, however contentious or not the discussion may be. --rgpk (comment) 02:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Was that sarcasm? Is that helpful?
- The argument against having an RfC is that an uninvolved admin has not yet closed the current ongoing discussion. If a truly uninvolved admin agrees that there really is no consensus and an RFC would be appropriate, that would be different. It's pretty unusual to have an RFC regarding a move discussion since we have the whole RM mechanism, and I would think there should be a good reason - in the opinion of an uninvolved admin - to have one, before we had one. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Who cares if it's unusual? This is pretty clearly a bigger case than RM usually handles. You don't have to take my word for it - I've only closed a few thousand - but this is one of the Big Ones. It deserves a large venue for discussion, because it will set lots of precedents. No matter how an RM discussion is closed, you still only have the weight of an RM discussion supporting the result. You want this outcome to be supported by as much weight as possible, so it's a Very Good Idea, from your perspective, to have a broad RfC. What is there to possibly be against, besides the oddness of it? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you really want an RfC, we can throw an RFC tag on top of the RM tag, that way more people (possibly) get to see it, and we can continue the discussion we had going.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I'll do that. What I think is absurd is that people seem more interested in whether a closure was appropriate or not than they are interested in arriving at the correct decision. That is an example of how Wikipedia is NOT supposed to work. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- We're disagreeing on how best to get to the best decision (I reject the notion that there is one "correct" decision. But I have no objection to throwing an RFC tag on the existing (and now re-opened by yours truly) discussion - I certainly won't remove it - though I still don't see the need for it until and unless an uninvolved admin closes it as no consensus.
By the way, the issue of whether billinghurst should have closed this discussion, and whether he should be closing discussions involving this topic in general, is what still needs to be addressed by an admin, though consensus seems pretty clear, especially since it has been discovered that he admitted being biased on the issue a year ago. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, you see no need for additional steps until you don't get your way, and then you're ready to move heaven and hell, and re-open a discussion twice, yourself ([7],[8]). If I did that shit, you'd be reverting me and accusing me of admin abuse right now, but you can judge as invalid and revert closures as many times as you want. Why didn't someone else re-open it, if it's so obvious? Why not wait for someone uninvolved? What would be the harm, or is waiting for someone uninvolved only a wise move for people you disagree with?
I guess since we're to play by Born2cycle's rules, I'll leave this discussion and get to work on maintaining a move-request-turned-de-facto-RfC at the end of the RM backlog for as long as possible. What a load. This isn't how we're supposed to work, fellas. We've started to care way too much about how we get there, and we're losing sight of where we get.
I dunno, maybe the bottom of the RM backlog is a good place to advertise particularly contentious moves. That's actually worth considering, and finding a way to congeal into something more solid than these late-night musings... -GTBacchus(talk) 05:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, you see no need for additional steps until you don't get your way, and then you're ready to move heaven and hell, and re-open a discussion twice, yourself ([7],[8]). If I did that shit, you'd be reverting me and accusing me of admin abuse right now, but you can judge as invalid and revert closures as many times as you want. Why didn't someone else re-open it, if it's so obvious? Why not wait for someone uninvolved? What would be the harm, or is waiting for someone uninvolved only a wise move for people you disagree with?
- We're disagreeing on how best to get to the best decision (I reject the notion that there is one "correct" decision. But I have no objection to throwing an RFC tag on the existing (and now re-opened by yours truly) discussion - I certainly won't remove it - though I still don't see the need for it until and unless an uninvolved admin closes it as no consensus.
- Maybe I'll do that. What I think is absurd is that people seem more interested in whether a closure was appropriate or not than they are interested in arriving at the correct decision. That is an example of how Wikipedia is NOT supposed to work. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you really want an RfC, we can throw an RFC tag on top of the RM tag, that way more people (possibly) get to see it, and we can continue the discussion we had going.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Who cares if it's unusual? This is pretty clearly a bigger case than RM usually handles. You don't have to take my word for it - I've only closed a few thousand - but this is one of the Big Ones. It deserves a large venue for discussion, because it will set lots of precedents. No matter how an RM discussion is closed, you still only have the weight of an RM discussion supporting the result. You want this outcome to be supported by as much weight as possible, so it's a Very Good Idea, from your perspective, to have a broad RfC. What is there to possibly be against, besides the oddness of it? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Problems starting to flare up at Joey Chestnut.
This guy just won the Coney Island hot dog eating championship. Now, some editor keeps dropping in and inserting an asterisk, with some WP:OR about a "contest" that some other guy staged. Apparently, the other guy is some Japanese man who was kicked out of the main organization, or whatever. That's of no great concern, except that these kind of edits seem to be clearly original research, and he's inserted it multiple times now. I've left warnings on his page, but they've been ignored. Thanks, LHM 06:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would someone please help me with this? He's now inserting the same information, with some kind of malformed quote or something. I'm not going to violate 3RR over this, so someone else will have to deal with his defacing the Chestnut article. LHM 06:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a "malformed quote" it's an accurate quote from the New York Daily News article about Chestnut's victory and Kobayashi's counter-countest. It's relevant to the subject, and the Daily News is a reliable source. It's not good to removed referenced information from an article without a darn good reason to do so. I've fixed the formatting of the quote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at the article history, the first two times he inserted that, it was simply with an asterisk and his own opining. It wasn't until the last time that he finally cut-and-pasted a quote of some kind there. I don't know much about competitive eating, so it looked very suspicious to me--especially the first two times he did it. It was almost like some fan of the other guy who supposedly ate 69 hot dogs was posting it or something. I was simply doing what I felt was the right thing, as far as keeping the article clean. LHM 07:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- They why not ask the other editor? Instead, you templated him, adding "This was also original research, intended to minimize Chestnut's accomplishment." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- At the point I left the warning, all that had been placed in the article was an asterisk next to the already-existing sentence, with an expository paragraph expounding upon that other guy's having eaten 69 hot dogs, and how "some" had said that meant there would be an asterisk next to Chestnut's achievement. It seemed pretty clearly little more than an attempt to minimize Chestnut's achievement (what with the asterisk and exposition). I'm not sure exactly what you're upset with me about. The templates are there for a reason, and this seemed like a fairly clear example of OR to me, at the time, so I used that template to convey my concerns. LHM 07:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- This looks like a clear-cut case of Chestnut's Roasting on an Open Wiki. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- @LHM: WP:AGF, especially when, by your own admission, you don't know anything about the subject, and therefore have no reasonable basis for the negative conclusion you reached. Instead of helping an editor who clearly didn't know how to properly add information to an article, you assumed that he or she had ill-intent and treated them like a vandal. That's doesn't seem like a good way to go about things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute, which (right now, anyway) doesn't appear to require any administrative action. I'd recommend taking this into dispute resolution, perhaps at WP:DRN. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is no longer any content dispute, so no need for DR. My latest comments were about how LHM handled the situation, but you are correct, there's no adminstrator action that's required. I recommend this be closed as resolved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't treat him "like a vandal", I treated him like someone who was putting an asterisk next to a sentence in an encyclopedia article, with what appeared to be original research underneath that asterisk. I placed a warning on his talkpage about doing such things, so he responded by putting the asterisk back into the article, along with the same text. It seemed like some kind of fanboy thing for Chestnut's competitor at that point, so I removed it, and took this to ANI, since I didn't want to get involved in edit warring. LHM 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute, which (right now, anyway) doesn't appear to require any administrative action. I'd recommend taking this into dispute resolution, perhaps at WP:DRN. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- At the point I left the warning, all that had been placed in the article was an asterisk next to the already-existing sentence, with an expository paragraph expounding upon that other guy's having eaten 69 hot dogs, and how "some" had said that meant there would be an asterisk next to Chestnut's achievement. It seemed pretty clearly little more than an attempt to minimize Chestnut's achievement (what with the asterisk and exposition). I'm not sure exactly what you're upset with me about. The templates are there for a reason, and this seemed like a fairly clear example of OR to me, at the time, so I used that template to convey my concerns. LHM 07:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- They why not ask the other editor? Instead, you templated him, adding "This was also original research, intended to minimize Chestnut's accomplishment." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at the article history, the first two times he inserted that, it was simply with an asterisk and his own opining. It wasn't until the last time that he finally cut-and-pasted a quote of some kind there. I don't know much about competitive eating, so it looked very suspicious to me--especially the first two times he did it. It was almost like some fan of the other guy who supposedly ate 69 hot dogs was posting it or something. I was simply doing what I felt was the right thing, as far as keeping the article clean. LHM 07:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a "malformed quote" it's an accurate quote from the New York Daily News article about Chestnut's victory and Kobayashi's counter-countest. It's relevant to the subject, and the Daily News is a reliable source. It's not good to removed referenced information from an article without a darn good reason to do so. I've fixed the formatting of the quote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
questionable material gone, user isn't challenging it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article is relevant to so many of our notice boards that I can't make up my mind, so I'll just post here. I just reverted to a stub from 2006, before a huge expansion in 2009, and expect that if the author notices, there will be accusations and an edit war, so I figured I should notify y'all in case you think there was any merit to the stuff I deleted. First, the images come from a book that's in print, and on sale at Amazon. They are marked as the WP editor's 'own work', which either means he's circumventing copyright, or that he's the author of the book and this is a self promo. (As it would appear from this.) Then there's the credits, The pictures and excerpts above are from Lithomancy, the Psychic Art of Reading Stones by Gary L. Wimmer, Master of Lithomancy. "Master of Lithomancy"—I'm still savoring that. Under that are four links to the website of "Gary L. Wimmer, Master of Lithomancy", which have videos telling you that you're psychic and can learn how to harness your powers with his book, and that you can phone him for readings for only $60 a half hour. Okay, obvious charlatan, but he's evidently making money, so I expect him to scream bloody murder if he notices that his free advert for the past year & a half has been deleted. I'm also going to request that the images be deleted, but they're on Commons, which means that it'll take for ever. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I was a bit paranoid. Got an email from him where he seemed disappointed rather than angry. I don't think there's any privacy issue if I repeat the bulk of it, since it was addressed "Dear Wikipedia" rather than to me personally:
— kwami (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt
There seems to be some dispute about the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Might be worth a look from a neutral admin William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. If there is any doubt, please discuss it a bit, and then make it right. (I closed the RFC initially.) Jehochman Talk 16:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to be agreement on the talk page for closure but if a less involved admin did the honours, I think everybody would be happy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have endorsed the closure as a neutral admin. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Do you endorse Jehochman's closing statement? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As a mostly uninvolved admin (I opined vociferously against Cirt's RFA three years ago but don't recall any interaction with him since then), I agree with Jechoman's first sentence ("A request for arbitration is now pending, and it seems that the "battle lines" have solidified, so this is a good time to close the RFC."), but the rest of it is nothing but an attack. It in essence attempts to create a guilt by association - because some scientology socks opposed Cirt's RFA, good faith complaints about Cirt's conduct are no longer permissible. The RFC makes a prima facie case for misconduct and you can't just sweep it under the rug by blaming the accuser. However, since it's going to arbitration, there's little point in arguing over the closure. --B (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's an RfC that I and many others spent a great deal of time at. I would like to see Jehochman's closure reverted and the RfC left open if we can't find an uninvolved admin willing to draft an unbiased closure statement. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have now clarified that I endorse the act of closing, and the first/last sentences of the initial summary. I do not endorse the whole thing. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, the way the RFC has been closed by someone clearly considered to be involved just adds weight and demonstrates why the the Arbitration request is required. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, you're right. Jehochman's closure and statement are a perfect illustration of the problem. I withdraw my objection to to it. Let it stand. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- note - I have added User:Jehochman to the RFArbitration case, he is clearly involved now. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As an "involved" editor insofar as I have edited the santorum article (however I am completely uninvolved WRT Scientology etc.) I support the closure and RA's comment on the RFAR page that the RFC has become a "clusterfuck of epic proportions". Without commenting on the merits of the allegations or responses, the RFC has descended into a complete morass. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the resolved template in this section since apparently the edit war is still ongoing. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The edit war is the total responsibility of an involved administrator User:Jehochman warring an attempt to close it out of process. His closure was a disruptive/joke, a complete example of the problem that User:Cirt;s divisive, disruptive and against NPOV and BLP policy violating contributions create in the community. An administrator that disrupts in such a way has no authority and should hand over his tools. Such poor involved administrative actions ultimately reflect on all administrators and take authority and respect from the position. - User:Griswaldo presents a couple of diffs that clearly show why User:Jehochman should not have even had the idea to unnecessarily close the RFC on User:Cirt when users were clearly objecting to him attempting to close it - never mind his warring to close it again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why does it matter if Jonathan was involved or not if The Wordsmith, who I assume no one thinks is involved, endorsed Jonathan's closure? NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because that is only one user endorsing the decision of one other user. There needs to be wider discussion involving more than one uninvolved user when doing things like closing an RFC. Admins are granted tools to enforce consensus, not to unilaterally make decisions. We aren't granting them authority at RfA. We are entrusting them with tools to enforce the will of the community. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why does it matter if Jonathan was involved or not if The Wordsmith, who I assume no one thinks is involved, endorsed Jonathan's closure? NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't see this thread when I opened a request for administrator intervention on AN [9]. There are several reasons why Jehochman was mistaken in closing the RfC:
- RfCs normally run for 30-days. They should only be closed early with consensus approval on the RfC talk page.
- An argument could be made that the RfC should be closed if a related ArbCom case opens. In this case, however, an ArbCom case has not opened, and may not open.
- Jehochman expressed fairly clearly that one of the reasons for his closing of the RfC was because he disagreed with it. If an editor disagrees with an RfC, then they need to leave their opinion as a "view", outside or otherwise, in the RfC, instead of closing and announcing their opinion at the top of the page. Very irregular and unhelpful. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- And the fact that an uninvolved admin endorsed the close...? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- His endorsement should have gone on the talk page in the thread that should have been started to propose the early closure of the RfC, as per our rules of order. If we allow anyone to disrupt our dispute resolution procedures, then the process loses any credibility and validity. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that an uninvolved admin endorsed the close is irrelevant if there was not a clear consensus to close the RfC. The role of administrators is to enforce the consensus of the community, using the tools granted with their sysop bit. They should not be allowed to unilaterally make decisions such as this without requesting guidance from the community. I don't care if 5 "uninvolved" (as if that means they don't have an opinion) admins say they agree. There should be a discussion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Wordsmith supported closure, but he quite soon stated clearly he did not support all the closers comments. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- His endorsement should have gone on the talk page in the thread that should have been started to propose the early closure of the RfC, as per our rules of order. If we allow anyone to disrupt our dispute resolution procedures, then the process loses any credibility and validity. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- consider this - I am able to clearly post a comment like this about an Administrator without anyone disputing at all. a complete example of the problem that User:Cirt's divisive, disruptive and against NPOV and BLP policy violating contributions create in the community.- how many administrators could you say that about. Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Requests for comment on Al-Andalusi's edits and mass tagging, and change of template , is this allowed?
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The User:Al-Andalusi has tagged almost all the pages mentioned in this Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad, with the tag below (without giving a reason) Template:Hadith authenticity. The user also significantly change the wording of the above template called {{Hadith authenticity}}, recently. It used to say "This hadith article is in need of an assessment of the reliability of the hadith cited." at one point, it now includes the demand that users should "include the assessment of the hadiths and the reliability of their chains of transmission". I also want to know if the above template has backing of wikipedia policies. i think AL-Andalusi changed the wording just so he can add it to the 30+ articles he did add it to. to push the view that those articles are unreliable. See pages like these for examples: Expedition of 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik , Nakhla raid, Caravan raids for example, which he added it to. Is this a legitimate thing to do? You can see his mass tagging contributions here--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I have also been involved in a dispute with this user in the Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar article. Which has 2 versions of what happened in that event. Al-A's edits suggested that there is only 1 version of the event, and his version is the truth. It is clear that there are 2 versions. Please read this (footnote s). I added the previous version before. here , citing Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri. But he removed it saying its a "Non-mainstream view", here .--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Comments of involved users
So are you admitting that Tabari, "Last Years of the prophet". Ibn Sa'd "Tabaqat", and Ibn Hisham al Kalbi, "Book of Idols"...are not hadith books? Please be more clear?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Comments
I have now left a comment of al-Andalusi's talk page to explain why he tagged everything. Almost all the articles do not cite Hadith, so i dont think he did read the articles when he tagged them. Only few articles such as these Expedition of 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik cite what is called a Hadith --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC) On a secondary note, before I go and tidy the cleanup tag itself up, could someone in a better position to understand what it actually refers to decide whether the significant wording change made to it today is appropriate without discussion? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Of the 80+ articles in that template, most of which he tagged incorrectly. Only about 10 mention, use, or cite hadith--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Al-Andalusi, why did you tag Expedition of Muhammad ibn Maslamah, Expedition of Qatan, Expedition of Ukasha bin Al-Mihsan e.t.c , do you see anywhere where these articles cite or even quote or even mention the word hadith??? Those are some examples of articles that dont even quote a single thing. But you still think the tag "This article cites one or more unverified Hadiths" is justified?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe first we should get other users opinion on whether Al-Andalusi was right to add those tags on all the pages that he did--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The user has made a major change to the wording of the template. I beleive he will change the wording of the template in other ways so he can add it to articles. Is what he did allowed? Otherwise the template has no backing from Wikipedia policies. That is my concern. E.g before the template said "This hadith article is in need of an assessment of the reliability of the hadith cited." now he changed the wording. so he can add it to non-hadith articles. Do wiki policies even back this template?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok so,you would not mind if i changed the wording of the template to "This article needs to cite Lady Gaga's opinion, otherwise the article is factually inaccurate", because all WP:MOSISLAM says is "Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding {{Hadith authenticity}}". And cant MOISLAM be edited by anyone. i want to know wether your version of the "Hadith Authenticity" tag is backed by wikipedia policies--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Stop Both of you, please step back for a moment. If either one of you have a problem with the template, why on earth are you still editing this page and not the template's talk page? Seriously, please think about this for a second, first. Misconceptions2, the "admin action" requested is completely misguided. Wikipedia does not work bsed on the opinion on one admin. It works around consensus. Instead of having someone remove all the tags and thus begin a massive edit war, please resolve the concerns on the template's talk page. This thread should be considered closed now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
Semi-protection for '2011 Wimbledon Championships'
Is this the right place to ask for semi-protection for 2011 Wimbledon Championships a couple of anons keep adding blatant commercial content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Try WP:RFPP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will do that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
User misappropriating committed identity
I'm involved in a content dispute with a new user:DerekMD on Richard Stengel. User has requested comment on that dispute. I only mention these facts because I'd like to say that's not why I'm here. The new user has recently created a user page, appropriating a nice image from User:Coren's user page to decorate it. Unfortunately the new user doesn't understand the page construction, because while some userboxes were removed, the administrator userbox was left in place. Clicking on the test link demonstrates the new account with less than 100 edits is not in fact an administrator. So I mentioned to the user this was inappropriate and have received no response or reaction. At the time I noticed the user had a committed identity, which I thought, heh, unusual for a newbie, but so what? So today I googled the listed identity and... it's User:Coren's. Since I'm involved in a dispute of sorts with the user, I can't just correct it myself. Could I get some fresh admin eyes on User:DerekMD's page? BusterD (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am not an administrator, however I've removed the administrator userbox and the false/misleading committed identity from the userpage. Claiming to be an administrator when you're not and using someone else's committed ID is disruptive. Night Ranger (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't want to do that myself under the circumstances. I've notified both named users. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
temp block of suspected TOR node or open proxy
Looking at the contributions for 31.186.169.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I believe this to be a sockpuppet of banned User:TomPhan, a rather prolific sockpuppeteer (over 300 different accounts and growing). He's disrupted multiple RFAs, harassed me on my talk page (even accusing me of murder...yes, really), and makes editing WP significantly more disruptive. M.O.: Uses multiple proxies to avoid blocks and almost always plays the "I'm just a noob" card while displaying animosity towards myself and an extreme familiarity with WP (pretty much most of the stuff identified in WP:SOCK. I've been dealing with this for 3 years and am confident that this is the same person.
I request immediate block of the IP address with additional administrator support to stop this (if at all possible). Buffs (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- TomPhan isn't even the sockmaster, it's banned user Genius(4th Power). Night Ranger (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, 31.186.169.8 does not appear to be a TOR exit node: [10]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, so "or open proxy"... Buffs (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's definitely an open proxy: xx7.nl —DoRD (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Reported: Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Unchecked#31.186.169.8 JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- IP has been blocked one year as an open proxy. xx7.nl advertises a proxy service and the service works. Open up xx7.nl, type in a URL as requested and then surf away with your IP reset to 31.186.169.8. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Reported: Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Unchecked#31.186.169.8 JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's definitely an open proxy: xx7.nl —DoRD (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, so "or open proxy"... Buffs (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
impersonator
HkCaGu compared to HkGuCa — Preceding unsigned comment added by HkGuCa (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Please restore my "sandbox"
Dreadstar has deleted the work area in which I created Lewinsky (neologism). This has lead to the misunderstanding that my first edit was to create that article fully-formed. I asked Dreadstar to restore it but their response was "If you think I'm enabling a disruptive sock/spa account, you've got another think coming. Plenty of other admins to go to for this besides trying to rub it in my nose." KayBee (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- The article itself still exists. You could copy it to your computer and work on it there. I expect that because it's thought to be a BLP violation and is a candidate for deletion on that basis, they don't want extra copies of it running around. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Kiwi Bomb, (anagram: Wikibomb) could you please reveal the name of your primary account? Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note that such is not a requirement at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to review WP:ILLEGIT at your convenience, Collect. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's no question Bomb is a single-purpose account, and one that appears to know wikipedia pretty well, which spells "sock", although if his primary account is not blocked, he could try to argue that he's within the rules. However, refreshing my memory now by reading your citation, he looks suspect on several points. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just to mention, one of the points discussed at the DRV was that the single edit creation of the article was strong evidence for the editor being a sock, knowing that there was an edit history for the article in user space would have been very helpful in the discussion and never came up. I don't see much point in restoring it now, but I would like to know why it wasn't revealed at the DRV. Monty845 15:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's no question Bomb is a single-purpose account, and one that appears to know wikipedia pretty well, which spells "sock", although if his primary account is not blocked, he could try to argue that he's within the rules. However, refreshing my memory now by reading your citation, he looks suspect on several points. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to review WP:ILLEGIT at your convenience, Collect. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note that such is not a requirement at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- We're being trolled here, and trolled quite well given the all-enveloping shitstorm that has surrounded the creation of yet another article on a fake neologism (and the ensuing attempts to add it top various sexual slang templates and lists, as well as a fucking disambig link at the top of [[Monica Lewinsky itself) plus an article on Lewinsky's non-notable father. Block, delete, and let's be done with the games. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a more legitimate expression than "santorum". That's a fake neologism if ever there was one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
After the deletion of Road signs in Egypt, I have been reviewing the other articles to which Santapo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contributed. It turns out that a majority of signs in Road signs in Iran were copied other countries' signs; some use the Latin script, others (e.g. Czech snow chains and winter tires signs) are prima facie suspicious. I saw no other option but to remove all the copied signs; somebody more knowlegeable than me should feel free to selectively re-add them. (Note: while traffic signs in different countries are often similar, they may not have identical design; e.g. the color and/or the pictogram might slightly differ.) Somebody should also check fa:نشانهای_راهنمایی_و_رانندگی_در_ایران - the road signs seem to have been copied there from the English page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would just mention that while I agree that we should be skeptical about the tire chain signs, it is a lot more plausible that such signs would have utility in Iran then in Egypt, Iran is further north and has areas with sufficient elevation to receive substantial snow, see Mount Damavand. Monty845 15:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Brabbins & Fyffe LLP
Hi, apologies if this isn't in the right place, but from what I can see it's a combination of meat-puppetry and vandalism so brought it here...
This article, Brabbins & Fyffe LLP, was created by a new user, Harryftw, whose only other contribution has been an article named "How to avoid stains when eating grass", as per his talk page. I believe it's entirely fictitious and the work on some school children. He's now claiming on the article-in-question's talk page that "This page should not be speedy deleted because... this is a factual page on a comapeny that helps to describe our gracious country". In addition, another 2 editors, Neil Gibbons (who is a schoolchild as per his user page) and 09gibbn, whose only contributions appear to be vandalism, or at the least disruptive, have been removing the speedy delete template. Nikthestoned 10:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and one of them has now created Nikthestoned, which I feel *may* well be a direct prod at me! Nikthestoned 10:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- And a nice bit of vandalism on my userpage Nikthestoned 10:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Sinharib99
Someone needs to persuade Sinharib99 (talk · contribs) to start communicating and to understand why his rapid creation of unreferenced bibliographies is being responded to by PRODs from a number of editors. DGG tried to get him to respond on the 3rd but he continues to create unreferenced BLPs. He doesn't seem to have responded to any messages on his talk page for over a year. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:RPP backlog
Just letting you all know... Egg Centric 13:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Returned user User:Everyme
Not entirely sure how to handle this. I saw a dispute on the Village Pump here, where an IP was becoming quite upset. During the course of the debate, he claimed to be Everyme, a user who was blocked indefinitely in 2009 after socking around blocks. In April of this year, User:Xavexgoem unblocked Everyme with the edit summary "Long past done - close eye by me".
After I commented on the dispute at VPP, the IP came to my talkpage and confirmed he is Everyme. However, his tone became more antagonistic and I advised he calm down. Instead, he leveled a clear personal attack against me. I left a warning on his talkpage, which he removed with the edit summary "fuck off, dipshit".
I had left a message with Xavexgoem, but no response so far. I really don't know how to handle this. Normally, I'd call for another indef block, if not a ban, but Everyme has already stated on my talk page that "Nothing short of a rangeblock is going to stop me from contributing anyway".
I'm sure Everyme will take this report as proof that I'm out to get him, just like everyone else. Honestly, that was not my intention at the beginning; I simply wanted to understand the dispute and attempt to clam him down. He seems intent on playing the victim, though, and on disrupting the project until it conforms to his wishes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Unexplained removal of template
The issue was raised yesterday by Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requests for comment on Al-Andalusi's edits and mass tagging, and change of template , is this allowed? which was closed with the note:
- "...Instead of having someone remove all the tags and thus begin a massive edit war, please resolve the concerns on the template's talk page. This thread should be considered closed now".
That did not happen, instead Misconceptions2 removed every single tag and then another user (William M. Connolley) again removed the tags after being told by Misconceptions2 on his talk page: User talk:William M. Connolley#Al-A tagging all expedition/battle pages of Muhammad, advice
I made it clear from the beginning on the talk page (right after I added the tags) that the tagged articles include primary sources with no check for authenticity of the hadith, see Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad#Hadith reliability. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)