| Revision as of 15:02, 10 November 2012 editAnomie (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators33,896 edits →Image backlinks: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:54, 10 November 2012 edit undoDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Arb: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
| In addition, we'll be holding an ] session at on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! ] (]) 11:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | In addition, we'll be holding an ] session at on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! ] (]) 11:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Arb == | |||
| You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— | |||
| * ]; | |||
| * ]. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:54, 10 November 2012
 | Feel free to reverse my administrative actions; however, please let me know why you did it, especially if I made a mistake! |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Dan Bongino
Yesterday, you full-protected Daniel Bongino after my request on RFPP (I am marginally involved, so I refrained from doing it myself). Could you do the same for Dan Bongino? A different SPA is using that as another way to get around consensus. No offense to Mr. Bongino, but he does not meet our notability requirements, and losing the election today will not get him any closer to doing so. (I'm asking you rather than going to RFPP because you are familiar with the issue, having dealt with it yesterday.) Thanks. Horologium (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Done Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (geographic features)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (geographic features). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
"The edit summary was a reference to himself in the third person" Seriously? I'm afraid to say that that's an utterly shameful twisting of credibility. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Did you notice that he had identified the account as his about thirty-five minutes before he made that edit summary? That isn't exactly the edit of somebody attempting to sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did, but as you well know filing the identity on a back alley of the admin space is not the first place people will look during a discussion. To then posting an edit summary distancing yourself from that identity, well I—and most users here–would consider that pulling a fast one, at the very least. It is nothing more than a technical "cover your arse" move in case your found out later. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I rather doubt that. When the accounts got renamed to very similar names, everybody would have noticed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did, but as you well know filing the identity on a back alley of the admin space is not the first place people will look during a discussion. To then posting an edit summary distancing yourself from that identity, well I—and most users here–would consider that pulling a fast one, at the very least. It is nothing more than a technical "cover your arse" move in case your found out later. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Came across a "move" you did when looking at the history of Retrieval-induced forgetting during a GA review
Looking through the article's history for the GA review, I saw this diff. (cur | prev) 12:36, August 20, 2012 Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs) m . . (25,722 bytes) (0) . . (Reaper Eternal moved page User:I Jethrobot/Retrieval-induced forgetting to Retrieval-induced forgetting without leaving a redirect: Sandbox moved to article) (undo)
Was the article being edited in user-space prior to that? Was an admin-move requested so as not to leave a redirect behind? Just making sure I dot all my 'i's and cross all my 't's. Thanks. Churn and change (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with explaining my admin move. I Jethrobot (talk · contribs) initially began the article as a userspace sandbox. He then wanted to move the draft to articlespace, but Retrieval-induced forgetting had been created as a redirect, so I had to delete it to move the draft over it. The history of the redirect is below:
(del/undel) (diff) 10:51, 20 August 2012 . . I Jethrobot (talk | contribs | block) (224 bytes) (Adding speedy deletion to move article.)(del/undel) (diff) 23:50, 5 October 2006 . . STBot (talk | contribs | block) (59 bytes) (re-categorisation per CFD using AWB)(del/undel) (diff) 20:51, 17 June 2006 . . Cogpsych (talk | contribs | block) (57 bytes) (Redirecting to Memory inhibition)
- I hope this helps. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it helps, because I need to ensure there are no "unresolved edit wars" and so on in the article's history. Thanks again. Churn and change (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 November 2012
- Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end
- News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments
- In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?
- Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks
- Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads
- Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs
The Admin's Barnstar
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Misplaced Pages project. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Hi there Reaper Eternal, I hope you're doing well! Just a heads up, I've mentioned you here. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, and I see someone else has already dealt with it. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:Uw-softestblock
Hey, I really like your work (particularly at RFPERM), and I'm not gearing up to give you a hard time, but I reverted most of your changes here. I have no illusions about what I'm doing being at best controversial and at worst a losing fight, but fight I will, because I've got a lot of experience with this work and I'd like for others to see the data I'm generating before people draw conclusions. What's the most important bit that really needs to be in there that I left out in your view? - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I'll get started with my argument. The first assumption that people make when an admin does something unusual with usernames is that they must be either a hawk or a dove ... that they're either mostly concerned that we're letting people get away with harming Misplaced Pages, or they're mostly concerned that we're biting newbies. I think these are both valid (and sometimes correct) positions, but I'm mostly concerned with experimentation, data, and consistency, not with any one outcome. So: I've noticed in the past, and I'm still noticing, that many hits from Filter 149 aren't getting blocked, even when it's fairly clear that someone is choosing a username to represent, and adding links for, a group, organization or website ... I know this used to be a concern for "hawks", and they'd probably like to reduce the downside, but they've gotten too much pushback in the past when they tried to block with as little to go on as this. Likewise, I know there are a fair number of people who think the language in uw-softerblock makes assumptions about bad behavior that aren't necessarily appropriate ... and even if they are appropriate in the larger scheme of things, it may not be stuff that's polite to say when greeting someone. What I'd really like is to come up with a way to satisfy everyone, and there's at least a chance we can do that.
- On leaving out the "if I've made a mistake, here's what you do" ... the solution IMV is not to make a big deal of it, and not to make a mistake ... it's not hard to figure out whether a username could possibly represent a person's name or allowable alias, and if I'm not sure, then I don't use uw-softestblock. (And why are we putting the burden on someone who has 5 seconds of exposure to Misplaced Pages's processes to figure out if anything has gone wrong and to fix it, rather than on someone who's been working with this stuff for years?) In RL, if some offical starts telling you "You have the right to ...." after they've taken some action, you're not likely to think "Oh they're being so nice to me", you're likely to think they're accusing you of some kind of flagrant violation. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I discussed my approach at WT:U#Opinions requested, if that helps. Also, I don't have any goal here of getting rid of other current templates or telling admins what templates to use; I'm just creating a new template, looking for feedback, and experimenting with it ... and hopefully I won't be the only one using it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, one of my fixes was to fix the link to the account creation page (which, I think, should be restored, since you are linking to a MediaWiki redirect rather than the actual page), and a couple others were copyedits and grammar tweaks that I really don't care too much about.
- Looking at the diff of your edits, it doesn't seem to alter my one link, which I copied from uw-softerblock. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- However, I don't think that it is particularly fair to blocked users to not leave them a way of requesting unblocking, even when we are extremely careful to not make inappropriate blocks, because somebody will eventually make such a block.
- I understand that this is not cut and dried, and others make different arguments, but here's how I see it. A username block shortly after account creation for having a username that represents a group, organization or website is unlike every other block ... it's not that they knew that they were doing something wrong, and have been convicted, and are entitled to their day in court ... it's just not one of the allowable usernames on this website. Every user community allows some usernames and disallows others. Patrollers have found over the years that such names can be a sign that bad editing may follow ... but picking such a username isn't bad behavior by itself, and I would prefer to avoid any language that gives the impression they've done something wrong, that starts us off on the wrong foot. I also think it's counterproductive to tell them that there's an appeals process for this particular infraction ... as if other people are being granted special permission (which we will of course deny to this user) ... that can't make them feel better ... and on top of that, it's not true, we don't allow anyone to represent themselves that way.
- One common scenario is when the admin leaves
{{softerblock}}but forgets to enable account creation and disable the autoblock. This effectively prevents the user from creating another account and leaves them no opportunity to appeal. I can see your point about not leaving the{{unblock-un}}option if they have next to no edits. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)- I use a tweaked version of easyblock, namely, User:Dank/tempeasyblock.js, which does everything with one click, so it can't disable account creation if I'm choosing the uw-softestblock tab. I wouldn't mind keeping an eye on any admins who choose to make use of softestblock and make sure they're also using a failsafe blocking script. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I still don't think it is right to not leave users a way of appeal. You'd have to monitor every single block, and, given that ProcseeBot (talk · contribs) alone often blocks fifty proxies or more in ten minutes, I don't think that you could. Furthermore, I don't think that most admins use the easyblock script, so they could still inadvertently hardblock the user. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping to wait till the end of the month when I had more data, but if it's important to you, I'll stop using the template for two days (and wait to see if I get any complaints or anyone re-creates the deleted pages ... so far, so good), then continue the discussion I started at WT:U, and either discontinue the template entirely, keep it as is, or move it to my userspace, depending on the results of the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I still don't think it is right to not leave users a way of appeal. You'd have to monitor every single block, and, given that ProcseeBot (talk · contribs) alone often blocks fifty proxies or more in ten minutes, I don't think that you could. Furthermore, I don't think that most admins use the easyblock script, so they could still inadvertently hardblock the user. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I use a tweaked version of easyblock, namely, User:Dank/tempeasyblock.js, which does everything with one click, so it can't disable account creation if I'm choosing the uw-softestblock tab. I wouldn't mind keeping an eye on any admins who choose to make use of softestblock and make sure they're also using a failsafe blocking script. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, one of my fixes was to fix the link to the account creation page (which, I think, should be restored, since you are linking to a MediaWiki redirect rather than the actual page), and a couple others were copyedits and grammar tweaks that I really don't care too much about.
- I discussed my approach at WT:U#Opinions requested, if that helps. Also, I don't have any goal here of getting rid of other current templates or telling admins what templates to use; I'm just creating a new template, looking for feedback, and experimenting with it ... and hopefully I won't be the only one using it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Okey doke, I just left my argument on the template language at WT:U. You make a good point that some admins may screw up and disable account creation by mistake when using this template, so that the user wouldn't be able to give feedback; I suggest we tackle that problem if softestblock survives the current discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
arbitration assistance needed for La Luz del Mundo
Hey asshole I need your help.
Hi I'm RidjalA and I came across your page after searching for an admin who might best be able to help arbitrate some sensitive, albeit controversial, topics regarding La Luz del Mundo and its respective issues being discussed here. I read on your page "Make articles, not wikidrama", and I figured your seemingly level-headedness and good humor would be helpful for settling some disputes. For these reasons any opinion from you as an outside voice would be immensely insightful, and if they don't help settle some disputes, I hope they at least help to alleviate tensions.
I also have a concern that two users, Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, I feel have been tag teaming me WP:TAGTEAM to establish their consensus in dismissing my points of view. They've complicitly reverted some or all of the content of my edits, to the point where it's become problematic and my discussion on the talk page just doesn't help anymore (it's seriously not funny anymore). I can't contribute a single thing without having both these users bombard the page with dozens of revisions like so, distorting my edit for the benefit of the church {frowns}.
They are increasingly turning my revisions to look more like this, where sections which have been reviewed by independent Third Opinions are being deleted, and replaced with content as if to ignore outside opinions to censor me and promote their church (that's my hypothesis). I especially drew the line when one of these two users violated the 3 revert rule this morning {frowns again}. For the sake of being the better person, I've abstained from further editing/reverting regardless of my justifiability, until this issue is addressed, and thus here I am requesting your most valuable input.
I would immensely appreciate your insight in regards to this matter, thanks and have a wonderful day (btw I was just testing the thickness of your skin at the beginning, much respects XD ) RidjalA (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I cannot contribute neutrally in that topic area. You'll need to ask somebody else or pursue one of the methods of dispute resolution. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Question about reviewers
I understand the first two abilities reviewing gives a user, but what does "Administrate article feedback" mean? I have done a quick search but haven't found anything about it. Thanks again for making me a reviewer! Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Basically, you can hide vandalistic or BLP-violating article feedback with reviewer or rollback. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- With your info I did find this guide, and in particular, this section. Thanks! Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks
for your quick work on the edit notices. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Image backlinks
It's a bit silly sometimes, particularly since File:AnonEditWarning.png being a fairly generic image of a key might be {{PD-ineligible}}, but images licensed CC-BY-* or GFDL (or pretty much anything in common use besides CC-0 and public domain) require the backlink for attribution and/or required notification that the image is in fact licensed under the license. Anomie⚔ 21:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I actually wasn't really aware that the link was used as the attribution. Thanks for fixing it though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, otherwise we'd have to put "image by so-and-so, under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license" all over the place. Anomie⚔ 15:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not a newsletter
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)