Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 25 September 2010

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

I will do my best to speak clearly and avoid "bad language" unless you let me know that you are happy for me to do otherwise.

Unless you request otherwise, if you post here, I'll reply here (I'd suggest you watchlist this page to make sure you see my reply). If I post on your talkpage, I'll watchlist your talkpage to look for replies there.

I'm currently: overwhelmed with real-life issues. I'll be dropping by sporadically, real-life permitting.

Click here to leave a new message.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Odokee

I saw that you finally closed the Odokee discussion (and I realize that you must still be setting everything up for that), but if I may have a moment of your time, would it still be improper if I were to undo this edit considering the outcome?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd counsel against it. My advice would be to avoid any appearance of edit warring, so discussion on the talkpage would be my recommendation. TFOWR 18:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the last discussions on the talk page was where someone could find an illegal download of the game. I don't think it will be of any use to bother with a thread that will not be responded to. I want to remove the wrong information and replace it with the correct information, but now I cannot do this because it will be seen as edit warring as you suggest. On any other page, this would not be a problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think the talkpage won't elicit responses, what about an RFC? It's maybe not quite appropriate, since it's a dispute involving exactly one editor (!) but might be a good way to proceed and get outside input. I presume there are no obvious WikiProjects that could provide input? TFOWR 20:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, had a rethink. Leave this with me, I'm tied up for the next few hours but I'll post at ANI. TFOWR 21:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you're thinking too, when you get a chance to talk about it. I think its fair to say that I'm not involved.--*Kat* (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nothing exciting - in fact, that's basically it: I'll post at ANI ;-) Ryulong isn't edit warring, they've asked me for my advice, my advice is... limited, so I'll look to ANI for guidance. TFOWR 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The pronoun you are looking for is "he".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll use gender-specific pronouns if you'd prefer (indeed, if any editor requests it) but in general I use gender-neutral pronouns. Thanks for nudging me, I'd got caught up in some unpleasantness elsewhere and haven't pinged ANI yet. I'll do that now. TFOWR 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ryūlóng, there's not been any opposition to the revert at ANI. I'd say go ahead and do it - if there's any fallout you can blame me. TFOWR 15:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it turns out that the name in Japan is entirely parsed in English, so it kind of renders things moot unless I add the Katakana reading of it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you take of this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it the edit summary that's the problem? (I'm asking because I'm unsure what it means - I could guess, but I could be very wrong...)

From the perspective of the editing ban, I'm OK with it - I limited the scope of the ban to articles and article talkpages, and removing posts wouldn't fall under that or fall foul or WP:OWNTALK. Assuming that the edit summary is ... dismissive, then I'd be a little concerned, but not unduly: I'd put that into the category of "venting while restricted". Without understanding the edit summary, however, my take on it is necessarily limited. TFOWR 08:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

He said "remove retarded crap" in a dismissive way by using faux hepburn romanization.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's not nice. I don't feel it falls under the ban imposed at ANI, however. You could take it to WP:WQA - it's arguably an attack on the editors who posted the messages being removed - but I'd be inclined to try and ignore it. TFOWR 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ban question

I am currently on a complete interaction restriction with and about a user who is currently banned altogether. I would like to know how, or if, I can get this interaction ban on me rescinded. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So... the other user isn't on-wiki at all anymore? It seems slightly pointless there being an interaction ban. Honestly, I don't know what the answer is. Possibly WP:AN? That would seem the logical place for bans etc to be set, reset and unset. If you're concerned about discussing the other user, email me, and I'll raise it at WP:AN. TFOWR 09:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be sending you an e-mail shortly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I didn't recall they were initially talking about only a temporary ban. In any case, I have faithfully kept hands-off, and whatever they decide, they decide. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate Xeno taking the time to comment, but I'd like more comments - I take the view that as an established editor you have a right to a proper resolution one way or the other: "no, keep the ban" would be a better result than "meh, no comment, no consensus." I'll ping-bump AN later... TFOWR 08:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw the proposed alternatives on AN, and I would be fine with those ideas. I don't need the entire ban lifted, just the handcuffs taken off so I can provide observational evidence if the need arises. The direct interaction ban can stay in place, as I've got no reason to post on his talk page or to go after him in ANI. As I found by watching from the sidelines, there was no shortage of editors willing to speak up, and there was nothing new I could have added to those discussions even if I weren't under restriction. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think something could be hammered out by whoever closes it that addresses Atmoz' concerns, too... though I suspect that that problem is maybe a little too optimistic about COM's return to editing. Pity - I actually worked with COM once and found them to be a good editor in many ways. There's something about this place that turns people into bad socks ;-) TFOWR 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am hopeful that my latest comments there will speak to Atmoz's ideas. Consensus seems to be to just loosen the belt a little bit, and that's all I really want. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Blog posting: paging talkpage stalkers! WP:ENGVAR at WP:VPR

Many of this page's stalkers speak interesting varieties of English - Australian English, Canadian English, Kiwi English etc. I flit between Scottish English and Kiwi English as the fancy takes me, and could possibly blag my way with Singapore English, lah. Up 'til now I've been in favour of WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN, and I've argued for "outwith" to be kept at Scottish articles, while retaining US spelling in US topics etc.

There's an interesting discussion about WP:ENGVAR at The Village Pump (Proposals). The proposal, which is a perennial favourite (or "favorite"!), is to adopt American English through the project. Now... before you all head off to register your disapproval, I'll warn you that I have not argued against it. I've referenced another project with a quite different policy to ENGVAR, and suggested that standardising on American English may actually be A Good Thing™. I've also suggested a technical solution, which may or may not be such a good thing.

I suspect that the Village Pump proposal will be shot down in flames sooner rather than later. I'd be interested, however, in hearing your thoughts on this. ENGVAR: good or bad? Should we accommodate those wacky Scots, with their "outwiths", and those crazy Aussies who can't make up their minds how to spell "labour"? Would my technical solution (a template) be workable? Is this all a drop in the ocean, compared to more serious issues like article improvement? TFOWR 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow interesting. My English is rather confused, having been exposed heavily to both British/Australian/Kiwi/Malaysian etc. and American/Filipino etc. I personally divide english into those two groups as the differences within those groups is minor and in my opinion usually an issue of vocabulary (Of course, I have no idea where GoodDay falls). I would object to US english for personal reasons, so probably best not to get into that argument. I don't think this will get very far, a lot of the other language wikis have different wikis because they consider themselves different (eg. Croatian and Serbian), when in reality they are quite similar. English doesn't have this. I think ENGVAR is probably the most feasible solution bar multiple wikis or having two copies of each page which someone can flick between using buttons somewhere on the wiki. If that was done, it would probably only include 2 (or at most 3) variations, and so I'm sure some from more 'minor' english variations would be miffed. I wouldn't mind a scots wiki though, for the novelty ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting of course that the scots wiki must be translatable into "normal" english ;) It takes a looong time to read articles one the scots wiki right now! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I can barely contribute in British English as it is ;) --Errant 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Outwith Labor? - 220.101 talk 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a job, many years ago, in a big corporate place. It was a multinational, but the office was in Scotland. There was a badly-spelled notice by the water-cooler, something about when you could and couldn't use the coffee machine or something. And the final line was... "out with office hours". I always used to smile when I saw it... I never plucked up the courage to cover up the top bit of the notice with something else, so the whole poster would read: "Work is a four-letter word! Out with office hours!" ;-) TFOWR 20:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ye be outwith editing hours, time fer some sack time laddy! - 220.101 talk 01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Had to stay up waiting for off-wiki stuff to happen. That excuse has gone, now, so I 'spose it's time to sign off! Thanks for the nudge! TFOWR 01:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Farîd

How can I add this picture to my 'Egyptian nationalism' page? http://ar.wikipedia.org/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Mohammed_Farid.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capolinho (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The source listed suggests that the source is in the public domain, so I believe it's fine to upload here. Make sure that you copy the source ("The truth about Egypt, By John Romich Alexander, صفحة 196 من كتب جوجل, و الكتاب في ") and provide it when you upload it here. You should mention that the image came from ar:ملف:Mohammed_Farid.jpg, and that the image is in the public domain. TFOWR 18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All right. Thanks, TFOWR! --Capo (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't select the public domain, please check it for me http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Mohammed_Farid.jpg#Licensing --Capo (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I changed the licensing tag to {{PD-US}}, because the book (and the image) was first published in the United States "before 1923" (in 1911). I'm by no means a copyright or public domain expert, so I'm also not sure if I'm doing it correctly, but it does look OK to me. TFOWR 08:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I have uploaded a picture here but the license, as usual, was a problem, that's why, the admins delete it. I have uploaded the same picture in the Egyptian Misplaced Pages and the admins there put the license for me, how can I use the picture in the English Misplaced Pages because I give up uploading pictures here? http://arz.wikipedia.org/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Rahotep_and_Nofert.jpg --Capo (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just do the same that you did for File:Mohammed Farid.jpg - that seemed to work just fine. Is arz:ملف:Rahotep_and_Nofert.jpg a picture you took yourself? TFOWR 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied

. Didn't mean to come off as a personal insult, but I am furious.—Kww(talk) 01:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, but you probably want to move the entire comment to where you !vote. It's your personal view, not a response to me, my !vote, or my actions. TFOWR 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a personal response to your !vote. I was surprised to see you endorse such things, and think you should reconsider.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I endorsed nothing. I !voted based on what I felt was the best thing to do with pending changes right now. I made no promise in the past, and entered into no contract. I don't consider myself bound by statements made by others back in the day, and I think it's a poor basis for making technical decisions. I do think whoever made that promise was unwise, and I do think that as a community we all screwed up by failing to think through properly what we were going to do at the end of the trial, and that as a result the discussion/analysis/poll was a farce, but the argument that we have to make a technical decision based on a belief that a promise was broken - that's way too WP:BUROcratic for me. TFOWR 01:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Begoon

Apologies for butting in on this one, but it's not only opposed because a promise was broken, I opposed because, with the anger and frustration quite evident over the whole fiasco, I fear for the long term implications on trust and support for PC. I am strongly in support of PC yet I don't feel the long term distrust and anger caused from being seen by a large number of people to be abandoning procedure to push through a very short term unimportant goal is worth it. I also feel that having a pause between trials is the right way to do it, and certainly here where there are many valid speed and usability issues to be addressed, along with policy and process points related to it's use. I've pontificated at far too much length on the poll talk page if you're interested (not that there is any reason you should be) - but what it basically comes down too is a couple of things - unnecessarily pissing a huge number of people off over this will come back to bite you in the long run, and there is no reason not to do all this properly, other than arbitrary, self imposed deadlines  Begoon•talk 17:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Butt-in anytime ;-) I hinted at it above, but I think the whole process has been handled badly by us, as a community. We should have had a plan in place - prior to starting the trial - for measuring results. We should have had a plan for analysing results, post-trial, and we should have had plan for discussing the results and deciding how to proceed. The editors who came up with the straw poll came in for a lot of flak (and the straw poll was hideous...) but they at least made an effort. The rest of us sat and waited for someone else to do something.

This lack of planning was bad, obviously, and it meant what was always going to be acrimonious was more heated than it could have been. We spent as much arguing over the poll as we did over the trial. Actually, before I get on to the poll - the end of the trial! There was no heads-up that the trial was ending, it was a word-of-mouth thing. I caught that the trial had ended, and stopped using PC, but I'm fairly certain there were folk still applying PC1 after the trial ended. I didn't know what to do - at one point I was removing PC1 from pages I'd protected, then I stopped, then I started - no one really seemed to know where to go. Anyway... the straw poll. For various reasons, I hate voting - discussion is king. I'd have liked to have seen an RfC-style approach, but as I did nothing to promote that approach, I can't really complain. So... the straw poll dragged on, and no one was willing to close it - I suspect because admins could by this point be divided into two groups: involved, or befuddled ;-) Meanwhile, the myth took hold that the trial hadn't ended. We'd all stopped applying PC1, in many cases we'd removed it already from protected pages (and many of us only applied it for short-periods anyway). By now, it was obvious that the straw poll wasn't going to get closed. New polls started, debating what to do next. I !voted in a few of the early ones. But after the 20th or so poll started even I'd lost interest - it had become a war of attrition - which side will have the most supporters left awake when the rest of us have died of boredom! So Jimbo stepped in. That's always a good way to piss off someone... but it was probably very necessary. I think maybe he should have just said sod it - let's remove PC from anything that's still protected, and there'll be a fresh trial when the community gets its act together. As it is, he decided on yet another poll. We decided on questions - "keep"/"close" until November. Now... here's where I need to justify myself. To my mind, this is purely a technical question. It's a decision to turn off PC for a few months, or to keep it on. It's not a political question. But obviously, it was a great opportunity to make political points (I can't complain too much about that, either - I've been pimping PC at RFPP for ages...) So, I !voted purely on the question: keep until November. Come November I'll reassess once I've seen the new version. Now, I realise that elements within the community feel let down. Some felt that PC was bad from the get-go, and others felt that the straw poll fiasco was bad, and others felt that Jimbo's poll was trying to pull a fast one. But at the end of the day I'm not prepared to take political considerations into it. I suppose pissing people off is a consideration right now, but to be honest I think people were going to be pissed off whatever happened (and probably will continue to be pissed off whatever happens). We'll survive.

Prior to November we really need to learn from all this. Promises are a bad idea - consensus changes. Failing to plan is a bad idea - it's planning to fail ;-) We need to sort out what we're measuring, how we measure it, how we report it, how we discuss it, and how we decide what to do with it. And we need to do this before the next trial.

Blimey, that's an essay - sorry. I've been thinking about this a lot, and not saying much because it gets lost in all the other stuff going on. And because it's an attack on a lot of people - all of us, myself included - and people hate to be attacked. But I've wanted to say it, and now I've said it! I'm going to try and forget about pending changes now - at least for a few months ;-) TFOWR 18:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's worthy of an outdent if ever anything was... Well, I agree with pretty much all of that. The only place I differ is that I believe now would be the best time to shut it down and get it back on track, and it's not purely a technical question. We both know a bot could do the work required fairly easily, and at some point it needs to get back on the "discuss and define trial, approve trial, have trial, analyse and discuss results of trial, implement feature or return to go" cycle, and since it would restore a good deal of faith and trust to do that, and it needs to be done, I can see no time like the present. I see no plans to discuss the new trial, or its parameters, and my fear is that unless we have distinct decision points the whole thing just lurches on until it ends up being implemented regardless. If that was always going to be the case, then just implement it without attempting to gain consensus, and put an end to the "official" discussion. Even this is an improvement over what we have now, though it would still disappoint many, including me. If not,and we really want to do it properly, then draw a line in the sand, and put it back on track right now. This is just my opinion, based on experience with large software rollouts in previous lives. There's a discussion I recommend anyone interested in this looks at, here...  Begoon•talk 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'd even need a bot - if we had lists un-protection and semi-protection would be easy. The problem would be generating the lists - when I was un-PC1-ing stuff I had to make a judgement call on whether to un- or semi-. But even that's not insurmountable, to be fair. I do take your point about a "close" forcing the issue - it's going to be tough enough persuading folk that we do, really, need to start planning ahead. This will sharpen the mind... On balance, though, I think it's going to be tough either way - and with "keep" we at least keep pages protected, but editable. Incidentally, that's one argument I just don't understand - I'm keen on PC because it allows IPs to edit, but the argument seems to be that we're making the project more exclusive... Also incidentally - I'm really not sure about November. We start a new trial just before the holiday season? Most of the English-speaking world shuts down for a month! But I digress... TFOWR 19:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument about more/less exclusive is a difficult one. If we overall end up with more articles protected with PC and semi, then it's true in a way, because there are more articles where an IP won't immediately see his edit (and as an aside, as the trial has progressed, the longest time to approve seems to have gradually moved out from 1 hour to sometimes as high as 4 - which is significant) - if we end up with PC truly only used as a more accessible option on articles that would otherwise be semi, then obviously it can't be true. Of more concern to me is the growing push for use in BLPs. When you take a BLP "down" from semi to PC, you are actually making libellous edits visible to a large group of Reviewers and other users for the time it takes someone to review - that is a concern, imo. Also, given that with < 2000 articles PC'd the time for review has stretched as it has, where is the study on what happens when we make that 5,000, 20,000 articles? Or will we just try it to see whether the whole thing explodes? Sorry to say it, but these are all more reasons to stop and at least try to get some idea whether, as we hurtle rapidly round the next blind bend, there is actually a sodding great truck parked sideways in our path. Personally, I think it's worth stopping to have a look first.  Begoon&#149;talk 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Another issue related to exclusivity is protection-duration: I'm confident that the community will set policy in place limiting PC1's general use except where we'd previously have used semi, but I also have to acknowledge that I PC1'ed pages for longer than I'd semi them.

I'm not sure I agree about the BLPvio-visibility issue - right now a BLPvio is visible until it's reverted, with PC1 it'll be semi-visible until it's reverted. I don't see the time-to-revert being affected: even if time-to-revert increases to a hideous amount we're still better off. I recognise the legal concerns about allowing folk to see stuff, but there's already a feeling that it's OK for admins to see deleted contribs - I suspect legally we'd be OK limiting visibility of BLPvios to reviewers - so long as the group != all readers the WMF can argue it's being diligent. I do agree about the number, however, and I'm unconvinced that PC will work on every BLP - we already know it won't work on US presidents, for example... With the best will in the world, I can't see anything other that semi+ working on high-traffic pages. My preference for PC remains low-traffic, low-watchlisted pages. It's those articles about obscure poets that concern me - no one cares enough to watchlist them, and vandalism and BLPvios sit in them for months. Having these articles appear on the "to be reviewed" list is, to my mind, a positive - even if reviewing doesn't happen immediately.

I wasn't convinced by the Bugzilla reports that the speed issues had been resolved. I saw huge articles without PC open far faster than small PC'd articles. The argument went that it was a diff issue, but I always - I assume most of us always - open diffs. We work from our watchlists! That issue never seemed to really go away, and I wonder if the "diff cache" was affected by an increasing number of PC'd pages...? TFOWR 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was actually considering the stepping down of a BLP from semi to PC, but you're right, that's probably an unlikely scenario, so I shall cease to be as concerned as I was :-) I stand corrected, in that use on little edited BLP's does seem like a valid extension. Yes, I generally just open a diff from my watchlist, after viewing the history via pop-ups to see if I need to consider more than one diff. The speed issues are absolutely not resolved. As a web designer I'd be viewing that as a primary concern. Any opinion that tells you they are resolved is, frankly, bollocks. Another problem is that few people seem to know what to do with multiple edits in a PC queue. That's not their fault - the interface needs to guide them. I can't count the number of times I've approved an edit by another reviewer who didn't know they needed to do so - many of them admins - that's a big problem, clunky UI with no proper instructions. I also entirely agree that for high traffic pages it shouldn't generally ever be an option. Sorry to post these points in seemingly random order - way past bedtime. If I wasn't so strongly in favour of PC done properly it would be a lot easier. I could just type SHUTITDOWN @1!#!!111 and leave it at that. As it is I have the added problem of continually having to explain that is not my position at all. I want it to work, but work right.  Begoon&#149;talk 20:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with complex stuff like this - it's easier to communicate via stream-of-consciousness, even if it's far harder to follow ;-) I'll let you get off. TFOWR 08:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mackay 86

If you have time, have a look at this chap, please. Long story short his previous "hobby" was downloading files from Commons, weirdly distorting them and uploading them here under a new name, then introducing them into articles, and edit warring to keep them in when other editors removed them, and explained they were hideous distortions. Fastily, myself and a couple of other editors rooted all the images out, and got them deleted - then Fastily gave him a final warning.

His new "hobby" seems to be altering templates and infobox templates, breaking the transclusion on hundreds of pages. I've attempted to explain, but the only response anyone gets is for their comments to be deleted, or an abusive edit summary.

If you do look at this, check the talk page history too - he deletes criticism there before the ink is dry. I'm not sure if it's malicious, or just WP:CIR, but I do know it's getting very annoying. cheers  Begoon&#149;talk 15:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this with LessHeard vanU, who had raised a kind of similar issue with Mackay in the past. My gut feeling is simply to block to get attention, but I'm uneasy about attention-getting blocks so I'd like to sanity check my gut feeling first. This editor does look a little too "interesting" to be productive: prior to the image stuff they were doing infobox stuff as well, and appear to have been discussed at ANI. TFOWR 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I had seen that when I looked through that history a couple of weeks ago - that's how his user page ended up getting protected, I think - to stop him repeatedly adding infobox stuff he'd been instructed not to. I've come across a few editors a bit like that - they think they are working in their own little bubble and don't appear able to deal with it when people start talking to them, or advising them. Almost like they suddenly realise Misplaced Pages isn't just a game they play alone on their computer, but a real thing that actually exists. Badly explained, but at least one of us knows what I mean :-)  Begoon&#149;talk 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the "bubble"! I'm too lazy to trawl through my archives, but didn't you and I work "with" an IP who was very keen on making changes that worked "in their browser"? Something to do with Oman, I think... TFOWR 16:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's uncanny - I was going to mention him, but thought you might not have seen the incredible behaviour parallels. Yes, I'm too lazy to look up his IP - but yes, it's a definite category of user we need to invent here - WP:EITB - editor in their bubble. His thing was pointless style changes like centreing tables and captions, against established style, and refusing to use a cross browser compatible way to do columns, even after he was shown why it was better than "his own" way.  Begoon&#149;talk 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've just indefinitely blocked Mackay. Sad block, with a personalised block notice noting that I'd hope they'd return to the fold in the future. TFOWR 20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, that's what I would have done with Mackay, and I would have (and do) felt as bad as you do. Sadly, sometimes there does come a point where reflection on actions won't happen unless forced. I think you handled it very well, and even any indication they understand the problem and would be willing to fix it should be a reason to unblock. Reblocks, as they say, are cheap. I hope the "indefinite" part will be enough to import the seriousness, and I'm going to add an offer to help if they do decide to return, and need any help.  Begoon&#149;talk 21:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That was an exceptionally kind message you left. I hope something comes of it, and Mackay does request unblock. (Hopefully not just yet, but still...) TFOWR 08:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well,it's true enough. I would be happy to help them, if they understood the reasons for the block and were willing to attempt to be constructive in the future. One of the most frustrating parts about this kind of situation, where someone refuses to discuss advice or help offered, is that often you know that they are competent enough to follow the advice and would feel better about their own edits in the long run. The problem seems to be in the way they treat everything that originates outside the bubble™ as hostile criticism. Occasionally you can get past that, and even if not, it's best, for them and for you, to try. Possibly the "wake up" call will be enough, possibly not, but at least at that point you've done your best, and are pretty sure where it all stands.  Begoon&#149;talk 14:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mad refactoring to confuse people reading my archives

Off-topic (somewhat ironic, as you've just refactored to restore topicity  ;-) but (a) thanks for refactoring, I added the sub-header above to focus on our conversation when I linked to it at the poll talkpage, and (b) hope I didn't misrepresent you. I thought the key point to make was that there's more to do than just the bit Jimbo mentioned. TFOWR 14:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't misrepresent me in any way. In fact it provided me with an excuse to post again. Hell - you never know, if at least one person looks at it and thinks - "Hey, look, here's two guys who voted on opposite sides but they had a long, sensible discussion where they both ended up with slightly refined opinions based on actually listening to each other - and they did it all without snarkiness or snide asides" then it's done some good. Of course, that's probably optimism at the level of "free beer week" at my local pub. But we can't change the world overnight.  Begoon&#149;talk 16:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Free beer week" - I can but hope! It does occur to me that I had a similar conversation with David Levy (talk) in the straw poll discussion. Not similar in terms of topics, similar in terms of a civil discussion. So it is possible - this wasn't just a fluke! Now, let's see if my local likes your idea - free beer here we come! TFOWR 17:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

barnstar!

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I award you this star for helping restore all those templates and articles accidently mass protected by HJ and for doing the right thing Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I kind of feel I earned this one, but Twinkle deserves some credit as well. Once HJ had pointed me at "p-batch" it became very, very easy. (I also think HJ deserves more credit than debit here: it was a good-faith move, that may yet become our preferred option). Anyway - thanks! I'm away off to add it to my "trophy cabinet"! TFOWR 16:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quack

Does this edit look familiar? Not sure if this is quacky enough to warrant blocking, but it certainly looks like Engr.Makhdoom (talk · contribs) and Engr.Iqbal (talk · contribs) again. GiftigerWunsch 19:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Amjad Mehboob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'll keep an eye on them. Not enough for me to feel comfortable with a duck-block, yet, but I have to agree it's got my socky-senses tingling... TFOWR 19:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No activity since. I wonder if (a) it is the same user, and (b) the message is (finally) sinking in? TFOWR 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An IP did make the same edit shortly afterwards, so that may be wishful thinking. We can probably expect to see yet another account soon. GiftigerWunsch 10:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to adjust the sanctions

Hi TFOWR, I've just blocked LevenBoy for this. I think it's time to begin rolling out civility probation. Let me know what you think - I'm prepared to impose it myself now but wanted a second opinion. Also if you feel I've been too harsh please adjust the block/unblock as you feel appropriate.
In an unrealted matter I also indef eblocked Fatocop and Blue is better as confirmed socks - see WP:ANI and the Maiden City SSPi.
Also there is a lot of unusual disruption popping in the British Isles / Troubles area - I believe this maybe a long term sock-master having fun. (I'm not referring to teh LB/TR SSPI case here but rather 'The Maiden City' SSPi and the Willde360 account). It's becoming close to unmanagable by ordinary means. There may need to be mass semi-protection as well as a larger more careful examination of conduct/behaviour of a large number of confirmed sock accounts (ie MidnightBlueMan, Aatomic, The Maiden city). Also it might be timely to remind users from the BISE page not to disrupt / attempt to derail noticeboard threads - the LB / TR page is clogged with off-topic counter accusations.
With these points in mind I'm suggesting some ancillary editing restrictions in the BI probationary area (on an individual basis only and only when an account shows continuous disregard for site policy): 1)Civility Parole. 2)Talk page restrictions (1 post per day per talk page that addresses content only. 3)Interaction action bans. 4) Revert parole in the BISE area.
As the area is under probation we have these powers at our discretion BUT I'd like to formalize and agree them. I'm going to point Black Kite towards this post so he knows about it--Cailil 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I find the block worrying. Levenboys rude comment was out of line, but such a block should have been done by an uninvolved admin, levenboy had commented on Calils talkpage just moments before the block about going to ANI. I also find these proposals for draconian enforcement such as talk page restrictions troubling. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How am I "involved" my only interactions with any of you are purely administrative and have been. Also I have been warning both 'sides'. Using term "involved" must be backed-up with evidence. Secondly you infer that LB was going to ANi about me - that is not my impression - also I would have no problem with that bloock being reviewed. If LB b wants that all he has to do is request unblock--Cailil 20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I know your block was related to his comments and i agree the comments were unacceptable, i never use language like that on here. You were not involved in the specific issue he was blocked for, but it was right after his comment on your talk page where he was talking about your actions. I simply believe in all such cases it would be better to be handled by another Admin after that sort of interaction. Ive not said the block was unjustified, it was just the timing that worried me. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

LB's comment to me about an appropriate warning given to another editor doesn't preclude me from taking action in this area or with him. It doesn't make me involved - per WP:INVOLVED--Cailil 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact LevenBoy has not requested an unblock shows he probably thinks it was justified and knows it will be denied. I was not trying to say it was against the rules for you to block him, sorry if it came across that way. It was just my opinion that it would have been better for someone else to have done it after the message hed left on your talk page just moments before. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If I felt my judgement was clouded BW I wouldn't have done it - the fact is I have unfortunately had to deal with far worse so LB's comment didn't affect my judgement. The block has been reviewed by other admins and was extended (talk page access revoked by LessHeard vanU) if anyone else thought I was wrong they would unblock--Cailil 14:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the proposals are less than ideal. I don't feel we've been left with much choice, however. "Blue is better" was pretty much the last straw for me, and Triton Rocker and LevenBoy both seem to have interaction issues that aren't being solved. TFOWR 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no objection to a civility probation scheme. As you saw, I'd warned LevenBoy previously, having had to snip a comment. Amazingly, LevenBoy anticipated the comment being problematic and even mentioned snipping in the comment!

I've been following both SPI reports, and saw that the "The Maiden City" had been closed with several socks identified and blocked. Very disappointing.

I've tended to focus on solely BISE, and let editors do as they wish elsewhere. Recently I've been more involvd at Talk:Ireland and Template talk:British Isles, and I've seen the problems outside BISE. These are all part and parcel of the same issue, so, again, I think you're correct.

Regarding your 1,2,3,4 points - I'm broadly in agreement, 2 will be ll be a tough one to argue for however. I've had no end of difficulty trying to get people focussed on policy, precedent, diffs, links. People want to <ahem> chat. It's been suggested that we run BISE like an RFC for each issue - that may be the only way it works. I've been "structuring discussions" into fors and againsts, and that hasn't been particularly effective.

Anyway - short answer: fully support. TFOWR 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, yes they are an unfortunate but now necessary situation. I think '2' would only needed to be applied in relation to individual cases after serial abuse of the 'noticeboard talk space' and would hopefully be the very last thing that would need to be implemented--Cailil 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For clarity though while I do see ... chatting... on BISE, '2' would really relate to ANI, AN3 SSPI RFAR etc rather than there per se--Cailil 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that'll be even harder to argue for, but having watched at least one recent SPI turn into a "BISE-night down the pub", I see the attraction. I suspect ANI would want to set their own house rules for ANI. I'm all for it, though, if we can get buy-in. It's the constant "X said something so I just have to response" that brings on the drama. I fail to understand why people can't see that stating a point and moving on is far more effective than the endless tit-for-tat retorts... TFOWR 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm I understand. The point of that one (and we can leave it for the time being) is to prevent the derailing of enforcement threads - there might be another way to do that though--Cailil 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong - I think it's an excellent idea, and I think it's very necessary. I just think it's going to be a tough sell to ANI. Then again, the best argument for it is going to be the inevitable pile-on once the discussion starts... TFOWR 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If it'll help things at BISE? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the reason ive mentioned "the past" both @ ANI previously and on the SPIs is because i think things need to be put into context of the wider dispute, so a single incident or issue isnt taken out of context. It is like the current SPI against Leven / Triton. They both may have made the same sort of edits to the same sort of articles, all relating to the BI dispute but it does not mean they have to be the same people. Taken out of context, its easy to see how that would be very suspicious and with people calling for indef blocks for behavioural evidence alone its import to highlight that its a dispute that has been going on for years involving many editors. I dont do it to try and disrupt the process. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not really the problem, BW - what Cailil is hoping to prevent is the hugely indented threads, consisting of reply-and-counter-reply-and-counter-counter-reply. It's similar to the problem I've been trying to solve at BISE, by structuring discussions into single points. Allowing folk to make their case is fine (you'd be OK with mentioning the past history of the BI disputes), what's problematic is when an editor replies to a point, then that necessitates another response, which in turn provokes another response... There's really no need. It's perfectly possible to make every argument you need to make, in one post, then move on. People reading discussions are a lot less stupid than they're given credit for - they can see if a later argument that references an earlier argument is correct or not. TFOWR 23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely and on top of that all involved would be well reminded that diffs speak louder than opinions. Nobody needs to know what anyone else thinks of them - it just leads to trouble--Cailil 14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Many thanks, sometimes I feel like a bull in a china shop on en.wiki ^^ --Vituzzu (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I've not really done anything yet! However... I do see that both Alpha30's and the IP's edits at Biancavilla have been deleted as "blatant copyright violations". I'm still looking into this, but I am very concerned about "both" editors. TFOWR 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Action-less, comment less administrative thread

Hi TFOWR, would you please comment as to why no administrator is answering or commenting on this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ppwrong - This is not a request for your involvement as an Administrator but for a comment here as an editor, the thread has been open a fair few hours and began with a racist allegation against an editor. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like it was simply unnoticed in the usual ANI jungle. I added an unresolved note to the top to attract attention as it's a pretty clear and serious case of personal attacks. It probably wasn't advisable to repeat the personal attack to attract attention however, much less in bold and capitals. GiftigerWunsch 21:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No idea why no one's commenting - maybe because they're confident you're on the case? I had a quick check of contribs, my first thought is hit up RFPP for the two main articles. Mention the racism allegation in your RFPP report, and mention ANI so it doesn't look like you're forum shopping (hell, blame me if that allegation comes up - point them here). I can't get involved right now - things have just kicked off at BISE, with one SPI report coming back positive for socking by a BISE participant, another BISE participant has just been blocked for civility, and I suspect the shit-storm is just beginning - I had just volunteered myself for something (see the thread above) when all this kicked off, and I had to run away. TFOWR 21:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Griftiger for those actions and thanks TFOWR for commenting, there appears to be no attention, or even a comment. No worries, lets see if anyone comments there. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Would I be ok to take the lack of comment and interest and action to AN or Artbcom for discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey TFOWR :). Even though you told me a while ago (under a "mindset of vandals" thread on my TP (that's talk page- not toilet paper lol)), I thought I'd let you know I decided to incorporate some welcome templates into Huggle as part of AGF. It just hit me, don't know why I hadn't thought of it sooner! Hope all's well, Tommy! 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that is interesting - I've never used Huggle (only started using Twinkle and Friendly in the past six months or so...) but I hadn't realised you could config it quite like that. If Twinkle is that configurable, I've not worked out how to do it. Recently I've been doing quite a lot of copyvio reverts and welcomes, and I've gone back to manual, personalised messages (after a generic welcome) because Twinkle doesn't have exactly what I want.

...but - "level 0" vandal warnings! Good stuff! And thanks for showing me a useful tip - I'll try and give Huggle a test-drive. TFOWR 08:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I only

What tool is it that actually shows the diff that was reverted? I was quite disappointed when I first started with Twinkle that Twinkle wouldn't do that - it's pretty good for most other stuff. It automagically knows which page I'm talking about, so I'm surprised it doesn't also know which diff I reverted... Anyway, I'm loving the sound of Huggle. On my to do list I've got "welcome templates" as an action-item - Mais oui! (talk) has a "Scotland" welcome, and it would be very useful to be able to use that (I have a lot of daft Scottish pages on my watchlist, and they seem to be, uh, favourites for editors who, uh, need advice...!) Recently I've noticed that anarchist-related topics are also areas where new editors could do with learning about NPOV - I keep meaning to write an essay for anarchist/libertarian editors, which I could link to from a welcome template. And my most recent addition is copyright-stuff - there's an upcoming ITN which may involve an article that's been a dumping-ground for press-releases. TFOWR 08:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, huggle's interface () shows you the diffs :). The blue "i" button has the lists of (custom too) templates (drop down) while the red button drop down is the custom revert summaries. If you decide to try it out, feel free to use my .css page for yours. Although I'd change "auto-advance" to false for beginners. :) Cheers! Tommy! 10:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This may not be as straightforward as I'd hoped - Huggle is a .net app, and I'm on Linux usually. I'll play around with Mono and Huggle, and see if it's still an option. Fingers crossed... TFOWR 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

¡Viva la Revolución!

"Esta usted en territorio wikipedista en rebeldia. Aqui manda el pueblo Y el admin obedece."
"Are you (You are?) on wikipedia territory in rebellion. And here the people obey the admin."?

Seems TWOFR TFOWR is not around, has he been captured by the rebel cabal? - >:-O - 220.101 talk 06:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Must... restrain...OCD impulse... to correct TFOWR's name... sonia♫ 07:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Must... learn... to... proufread... bettur... - 220.101 talk 07:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, first things first - I stole it from Sannita, an admin at the Italian Misplaced Pages, though they weren't, I assume, the first person to use it (someone else here on en.wiki also uses it). The image is on Commons, and is a modified version of the one shown at Zapatista Army of National Liberation#Ideology.

According to the Zapatista article, and my poor attempts to translate the modified version, it reads:

You are in Wikipedista rebel territory. Here the people command and the admin obeys.

I mean, really! You think I expect people to obey me? You only need to look at this thread (above) to see what happens when I have any kind of "leadership" role... people ignore me, and other admins step in to fix the mess...

On the subject of "TFOWR" (and, arguably, my own "unique" views on "leaders"), there's another thread (above) that discusses recall and other admin issues, and I've commented on it - crucially offering various things that "TFOWR" might stand for... TFOWR 08:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Terrible Frighteningly Oppressive Wikipedia Regime". That's what all you admins are, eh? No answer needed... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indef block - back-talking to an admin. Use the {{unblock}} template to request review, and I'm confident one of my colleagues will tell you "no" ;-) TFOWR 08:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll just "sass-mouth" them, too! I'll be unblocked in no time... Doc9871 (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Terrifically Fair Objective Wikipedia Rearguard". :-p Doc2  :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Superb! Any other takers? I want to see the best suggestions for "TFOWR"! TFOWR 09:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "The First Original Wikipedia Rebel? GiftigerWunsch 09:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This fella once wore rouge? sonia♫ 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Capt Tiberius FOul WeatheR - ☠ Arrr! - 220.101 talk 11:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Trinidad, Found Off West. Row! Capn. T. Fowr ☠ 11:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't want to be a DOLT

This seems to be a personal attack and legal threat; could you WP:MOP it up? Probably needs revdel and the IP blocking. GiftigerWunsch 08:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mila Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

95.19.64.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Not sure about NLT or DOLT, but the article's subject is a BLP, and BLP applies on talkpages (and everywhere). You did the right thing removing it (well, the editor who blanked the talkpage did mostly the right thing - you did the right thing restoring the WikiProjects and warning the IP). I'll keep an eye on the article, and try to keep an eye on the IP (though what's the betting they're on a dynamic IP address...) TFOWR 09:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly at least a BLP violation, but I figured the claim that the individual has stolen large sums of money (including from the author of the comment), is an illegal immigrant, etc. might constitute a legal threat. GiftigerWunsch 09:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a threat against a member of the community, though. We need to protect the subject from BLP issues, but it's her own problem if someone threatens legal action for off-wiki stuff. Incidentally, I've not trawled through history yet, but is there a COI issue here? The subject seems a little obscure for an article, and the article was quite... promotional... TFOWR 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure; I haven't trawled the history yet either. I found the talk page blanking while trying out Huggle (not liking it so far) and fixed it. I wasn't aware that we're not interested in legal threats against non-editors; I'll bear that in mind in future. GiftigerWunsch 09:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For good ness sake don't quote me on that! ;-) It's always best to err on the side of caution. I think in this case the situation is in hand - the IP's comment has gone, and the IP has been warned. Definitely worth keeping an eye on, but for now I think the article is our main concern. TFOWR 09:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that WP:NLT does seem to only apply to threats against the foundation or the community, so don't worry, I'll quote the policy not you ;) I note that WP:LIBEL does state that policy is to delete libel once identified though; I guess there's no means of confirming that it is libel rather than just a BLP violation though. GiftigerWunsch 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that that edit was "potentially libellous" (and qualify it by saying that only a court can determine whether something was libel ;-) Definitely better off gone, and I think that you're right and WP:LIBEL applies. TFOWR 11:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Hamish Griffin

User is on another spree mass creating very short stubs on English settlements, some of which may not even meet the basic policy that all settlements are de facto notable. Have you any idea what can be done in the nicest possible way to get him to include some basic information?--Kudpung (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamish Griffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'll take a look! My concern here is that, after creating them all, they'll ask me to delete them. Easier than having someone else CSD-tag them as well, but still a pain to mop up. TFOWR 09:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, I'm very much not a prolific article creator, but they've created more articles in 3 minutes than I've created in 3 years... I left a supplementary message, explaining what other editors have to do by way of cleaning up. I had a quick look at some of the new creations as well. I'm no expert on geog-notability, so have no real idea whether these are notable or not. In the past I've declined Hamish's CSD requests for some articles, as other editors had worked on them, and they ended up looking quite good. I'd like to see Hamish doing that work, however - it's far easier to get {{coord}} added at article-creation time, rather than going through the "tag, wait, add" dance that normally occurs with these hamlet articles. TFOWR 09:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, English settlements is an area I work on and know my way round, but like you, I don't feel like cleaning up and expanding 50 stubs with infoboxes and coords. Generally our policy is to include any settlement that is inhabited and is marked on an OS map. This prevents people from listing their farms and clearing in a forste with a telephone box. Hamish tends however to create piece of land that has a name used by the kids on the block. mass producing one-liners and expecting others to clean up is rather a no no, even for what is possibly a young author who is creating in Good Faith. A gentle block threat migt do the trick; but I don't thisnk he even reads his talk page. At one stage I thought he was using a bot.--Kudpung (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And there is more

. O Fenian (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a reply lined up for The Maiden City's IP:

Why, thank you. If you take the time to look up, you'll see that I assumed the best until I checked, and realised that you were The Maiden City, using IPs to evade your block.

...by the time I hit "send" the IP edit had been reverted, and the IP was blocked. Don't these idiots realise that this crap affects their "side"? It screws the decent arguments being made by good faith pro-BI editors, and pisses off the community. TFOWR 10:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, their juvenile sectarian hatemongering is very counter-productive. O Fenian (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me how TMC is able to use different dynamic IP addresses that sometimes appear to come from different parts of the UK? I note that all the recent addresses are with the same ISP - Plusnet Tecnologies

• 84.93.157.59 - ?
• 87.113.24.44 - London
• 87.113.26.186 - London
• 87.114.206.255 - London
• 87.115.76.201 - Derby

Previously we had:

• 78.33.101.58 - Telford (ISP Entanet)
• 87.115.87.159 - Leicester (PlusNet)
• 87.115.136.194 - ? (PlusNet)
• 87.114.2.83 - ? (PlusNet)
• 81.187.71.75 - Nottingham (ISP ?) - others say this is in High Wycombe, others again in France
• 81.149.129.5 (ISP BT Openworld)

It reminds me of an Old Case involving YourCousin which also showed a remarkable tendency to just around within an ISP's dynamic IP range (note I'm not suggesting these are related cases!) - again where the ISP was PlusNet. Is it possible that some of the more recent SPI's are showing up at PlusNet too I wonder? --HighKing (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons and WP:BEANS precludes us all from explaining them all. Any sock-puppeteer could do this (rather than anything specific about this case) by access to proxies and/or different ISPs (by physical movement). If they're a hacker a zombie computer could also be the case. Basically, in some instances IPs don't necessarily give us a physical fix on where or who the real world user is at all, which is why we use behavioural analysis of edit patterns--Cailil 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: ITN timer and the bot

If your activities are dealing with ITN then why are you resetting the timer for the DYK bot? As indicated by the beginning portion of the file you are updating, Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, your actions are affecting Template:Did you know‎ and not ITN. --Allen3  12:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, bugger. Sorry about that. No idea how I managed to do that, I normally reset the ITN timer directly from a link on my userpage. I'll check the correct timer now. TFOWR 12:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN timer's OK, BorgQueen got it. Once again, apologies for that. I still have no idea how I managed to get the wrong time, I don't have any DYK stuff on my userpage. TFOWR 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mopstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For being the friendly local admin and patiently handling all of the various mop-jobs I've asked of you since your RfA. GiftigerWunsch 12:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I figure this is overdue, given the amount of moppery I've delegated to you since I first encountered you just after your RfA. Keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to let me know if I borrow your mop too often! GiftigerWunsch 12:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (And did we really not meet until after my RfA? I feel like I've known you since forever!) TFOWR 12:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I don't recall exactly when now, but I seem to remember the first encounter I had with you was when your talkpage was full of "congrats on your RfA". I choose to take the forever as a good thing ;) GiftigerWunsch 12:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Rix whitewashing

Hey TFOWR, you're the only admin on my watchlist, don't ask me why, so I figured I ask you. User:Freelancer1 has taken out referenced material he feels is negative about Rix six times. Each time, he takes out the same material. I have tried to talk to him on his talk page, but he hasn't been online - until yesterday. Yesterday an IP made the exact edit he has been making. I'm 99% sure it's him again, though my gut says he has read the talk page notices and won't use that user (Freelancer1) again. Along the way, he has claimed to be a family member of Rix, shown that refs mean nothing to him, and has repeatedly marked his edits as minor, trying to get by. He only pops up every couple of months, but it is kind of annoying. Anything I can do? Nolelover 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, my first thought is that Freelancer1 (talk) has a WP:COI if they're a family member (as they seem to have said with their "my family appreciates" comment). I suspect you're correct, and that Freelancer1 won't edit again, however let me know if they do. You've spoken to them, if they continue to remove source text I'll happily block them until the message sinks in.

Turning to the IP, I think you're right, and that it's Freelancer1. The IP has only edited once at Chris Rix, so I'm reluctant to protect the article but that would be my next step if the IP (or other IPs) persist - again, let me know if that happens and I'll protect the article (obviously, I've now watchlisted Chris Rix, but I may miss something).

In summary: I don't think anything is warranted right now, but there is clearly a problem. I'll semi-protect the article if the problem continues. TFOWR 13:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't think immediate block and semi was needed. I was thinking more along the lines of an I've-warned-him-so-lets-stake-it-out kind of thing. I just wasn't sure if the amount of time in between edits (sometimes 3 or 4 months) would be a problem. Nolelover 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Alone at BISE

It's very difficult for me, when arguing for 'British Isles' addition, when LB & TR continously volunteer for forced wiki-breaks. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There's still BW, and remember that I'm basing my decisions on arguments, not weight of numbers. But I do agree that the recent "breaks" don't help. I'm also pissed off with The Maiden City and its amazing circus of IP socks - on a community-level, crap like that does nothing to help, say, LevenBoy. Folk are already seeing an open SPI: seeing IP socks that (I'm fairly certain) have nothing to do with LevenBoy editing on LB's behalf really doesn't help. TFOWR 15:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This MC bloke merely wishes to stir trouble for everyone. The bugger only wishs to hurt LB, not help him. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked into TMC's background yet, but it did occur to me that it could be a false flag user, intending to complicate things for the side it's pretending to support. To be honest, I don't really care: if we focus on sound arguments, and deal with the nonsense effectively (blocking socks, enforcing civility, making sure the topic ban works) then the idiots who were long ago indefinitely blocked won't be that much of a problem. It comes back to what I said earlier about not caring if an argument comes from a card-carrying member of the "British Imperial (Take Back the USA and Ireland) Party" or the "Republican Ireland (Invade the UK) Party" - if the arguments are sound, that's good enough for me. Weight of numbers doesn't matter, so socking is just a waste of time. TFOWR 15:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know GD, I agree with you and TFOWR re: the TMC issue - there is reason to believe somebody, or a group, has been playing 'both sides' (call it false flag or good hand/bad hand) in a long term pattern of abuse--Cailil 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Irvine22 is a suspect, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

semi

Hi, is currant not correct? I like currants...? Also, I have requested semi prot at the WP:RFPP .. could you add it for me, it is usual for brit party leaders as the attract a lot of vandal edits. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It was only the date format I was *cough*ing at - "September 25, 2010" would be OK for US articles, but for the new Ed of the UK Labour Party we should be using "25 September 2010" - UK format for UK subject, etc.

I'll take a look at RFPP now. I'm not sure if I can protect, however - depends on the article, but I'm currently in a dispute at Labour Party (UK). TFOWR 16:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...Ed Milliband, however, is fine. So he's the new ruler leader? Misplaced Pages, where I get my news from...! Oh yeah, semi, 3 days... TFOWR 16:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...I took the opportunity to make a party political broadcast on behalf of PC, too. I need to stop doing that - I'm going to piss me off before too long. TFOWR 16:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, a few days will allow for discussion as to how to go forward. I would have added pending, but in the currant environment it would be controversial to request it. His brother David Miliband is on pending as is the present (currant) chancellor George Osborne, all working well and with the added wiki founding goals bonus that unconfirmed accounts can still contribute. From Jimbos page, Statement of principles, 3 - "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. - pending is much much closer to that goal than semi protection.Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of British Isles

Hello again. I've just been having a think about your earlier posts. Are you telling me that no one at Misplaced Pages can add or take out British Isles without permission from some other users? If so, does that apply to any other terminology, how is it managed, and how are people supposed to know about it. I find it odd to say the least. Lancashire Druid (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely. In general Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold, and to make positive changes without there needing to be any discussion or agreement.

From time to time an editor will make a change, another editor will object, and the first edit will be reverted. This is normal. What happens next can vary, however. The approach I prefer is one called "bold, revert, discuss" - once the second editor has reverted the edit, both editors would then discuss the change on the article's talk page, and hopefully arrive at a consensus (other editors might well see the discussion and join in, offering their own opinions).

What's probably more usual, unfortunately, is that the original two editors - instead of discussing the change - "edit war". This involves reverting each other repeatedly. This is regarded as disruptive, and to prevent it happening too much there's a rule called "3RR" ("the three revert rule"): any editor who reverts on the same article more than three times in one 24-hour period can be blocked, or prevented from editing, for a time. This forces editors to either discuss changes (eventually!) or stop editing.

In the case of the "British Isles", new editors aren't expected to know about the sanctions. Once they've edited a few times, someone (me, in this case) will let them know. My concern wasn't so much that you should be constrained, it was more that other editors get concerned when new editors appear and start adding or removing the term.

Most things on Misplaced Pages are consensus-driven, though there are some rules and guidelines. The most important "rules", however, are "the five pillars" - in general, if you have a quick read of the five pillars, and follow them when editing, you should be fine. (Consensus, by the way, is part of the 4th pillar, which mostly covers editing with respect to other editors: be civil, act in good faith, etc.

That's the "fluffly" version of the introduction to Misplaced Pages. The "spiky" version, or "what they don't tell you in the five pillars or the pretty press releases" version, is this:

Different editors have different, strongly held opinions. For example, editors from Iran believe that there is a stretch of sea called the "Persian Gulf". Editors from Arabia believe that this is Iranian propaganda, and that the stretch of sea should be called the "Arabian Gulf". This causes editors to covertly make changes, to argue, and to edit war. I'm sure you can think of other topics that might also be subject to this! The "British Isles" is one-such area - on Misplaced Pages they're called "POV" topics, from the policy "WP:NPOV" (neutral point-of-view). We're all supposed to try and edit from a neutral point-of-view, but sometimes it's hard!

The "British Isles" is by no means the worst area for "POV editing", but it is an area where strong emotions and strong views come into play. There's antagonism between British and Irish editors, and between unionist and nationalist editors. That doesn't mean that every British or Irish subject is a battlefield (I doubt there would be too many issues editing topics about Lancashire, for example) but certain areas are quite heated.

Don't worry too much about the "spiky" stuff. There are plenty of articles where the biggest problem will be that you seem to be the only person who bothers about it. I occasionally edit "Oman" - it's a fairly big country in the Middle East, yet I seem to be one of only two editors who every really edit it. And the other editor is someone I get along with just fine.

Hope this helps, and don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions. TFOWR 19:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhh banned for OR?

I just had a moment which challenged my understanding of wikipedia policies when I saw this template added by an IP, to the talk page of an indef blocked user. I reverted the addition and tagged it for speedy deletion as blatantly misrepresenting policy (banned, indeed). Does anything else need to be done? GiftigerWunsch 19:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Chen Wenyuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'll keep an eye on the editor's contribs. I've CSD-T2'd the template, beyond that, I guess WP:AGF kicks in, but... very interesting creation for a first edit. TFOWR 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've also just removed the dead transclusion from about 15 other talk pages of indef blocked users. I'm glad it wasn't substed... GiftigerWunsch 20:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite run-of-the-mill vandalism, but I'm not sure what I'd call it. Well, alright, I did call it vandalism. I indef blocked Chen Wenyuan. Still not comfortable calling it vandalism, but even less comfortable haing that account unblocked. After creating the template, "an IP" immediately added it to several editors (the ones you found and reverted). This strongly suggests bad-ness to me. TFOWR 20:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed two things: almost all of the users had been blocked by Future Pref, and when checking the IP's contrib history, they had added pro-nazi propaganda to several pages in Future's userspace, along with another edit to Future's userspace which had been revdelled. It seems they had some sort of personal issue with Future. As for vandalism; it's very clearly a deliberate hinderance to the project, so it is certainly vandalism. The only reason I issued a level 2 template instead of a 4im is because you mentioned AGF so I thought I'd leave it up to you as to what would be most appropriate. GiftigerWunsch 20:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)