| Revision as of 16:07, 18 February 2008 editNathan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,146 edits →BC Pages: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:43, 18 February 2008 edit undoHammerandclaw (talk | contribs)297 edits ←Replaced page with 'Why did you revert my comment???! Ain't my fault my broadband can't even process his f*****g page...or yours.--~~~~'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Why did you revert my comment???! Ain't my fault my broadband can't even process his f*****g page...or yours.--] (]) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. For the fictional wolf of the same name, see ].'' | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together." style="{{divstylegreen}}"><b>If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together. I tend to watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a few weeks after my initial post, but I don't keep my watchlist open all the time. If you want to get my attention sooner, feel free to leave the reply here instead. If you , I'll respond here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. I may also reply at your talk page if that is the trend in the conversation.</b> <small> Discussions that took place prior to 21 October 2006 are mostly split between talk pages.</small></div> | |||
| <!-- Template:Archive_box begins --> | |||
| <div class="infobox" style="width: {{{box-width|200px}}}"> | |||
| <div style="text-align: center">]<br /> | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| </div> | |||
| ---- | |||
| *<small>] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *]</small> | |||
| </div><!-- Template:Archive_list ends --> | |||
| ==Request to admins not to provide info to user with legal concern== | |||
| On 25 January, you put a message on the talk page of Bduke for admins not to respond to requests from another user because there was a legal issue involved. Since then, this user has gotten user DGG to reassemble a deleted talk page for him. This is contained on the talk page of DGG.] (]) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've asked those involved what happened. See below. For the record, my reference to "legal issues" was based on , which referred to libel. I wasn't suggesting that any actual legal proceedings had been started, merely pointing out that libel had been mentioned, and thus to proceed with caution and ideally direct communications to those who can deal with such things. ] (]) 02:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==American Journal Experts== | |||
| I was the one who deleted the article because of the vote and stronger arguments but I was not aware of the potential libels issues before Blue1 alerted me in regards to that use. He pretty much said the same thing then at ] and I've basically directed him as other thus the Mediawiki/Foundation area. --] 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see BDuke's comments at the ]. I looked again, and I still do not think listing in the manner that this was listed shows notability; the inclusion on the nature.com author information page might have meant something, except it was copied from the company's publicity. There is indeed something odd--the history shows that the first version of the article had a flattering description and ''also'' an attack on the company--but you can see it yourself, of course. The company, instead of trying to remove the criticism, tried to remove the article. (The similarity of the names is probably because Blue is the Duke school color; that's not enough to prove it was an employee--a disgruntled client could have done just the same & ingeniously written the article in a similar fashion.) How respectable the company is, is of course not for us to determine. | |||
| ::The question is whether I inadvertently might have done wrong in emailing the deleted talk page, visible to admins at . I do not think I did any harm--it contains nothing that could be seen as compromising the identity of any contributor--mainly an email ad of theirs, which could have come from multiple sources. Obviously the foundation will turn down a request for editor information unless there's a subpoena. Nor did it contain anything remotely viewable as libel. The criticism of the company is the sort we would immediately remove without RSs, and keep if there were, regardless of what the company wanted. I've dealt with similar situations involving term paper companies; trying to post such complaints about the quality of service is fairly routine. Companies commenting here about such things only call attention to the situation; the more sophisticated one realise that. If anyone thinks there is still a problem, email me. there has already been too much public discussion. ''']''' (]) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see any problem here. Just wanted to get something on the record, mainly prompted by the IP post above. Thanks for the comprehensive reply. ] (]) 03:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have only just seen your question on my talk page. I am way behind after spending all day yesterday manning a stall at the Australian Linux Conference. I know nothing further. What is the libel issue? I thought the author was trying to find out whether the guy who wrote the article was an ex-employee of his company. --] (]) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It was . But as DGG says, probably nothing revealing in the talk page contents. Still, I don't like the way the user went admin shopping. ] (]) 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::So it was, and on my talk page too. When I first read that, I could not see that anything in the article was a libel, so I must have forgotten it. --] (]) 06:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::"The company, instead of trying to remove the criticism, tried to remove the article." We did no such thing. The page had been deleted off of Misplaced Pages before we even realized it. Also, I apologize for "admin shopping". First I asked for the IP. That guy said he couldn't see the IP and to ask someone else. So I asked someone else. Was told they couldn't provide me with the IP for legal reasons. So I asked for the talk page from the person whose profile said "ask me about deleted talk pages". If you don't want people to make these requests off of you, don't advertise as such. In any case, the multiple non-logged in IP posts by someone have given me all I wanted. What now concerns/puzzles me is how Misplaced Pages allowed a blocked open proxy to make that comment way up there. -] (]) 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You appear to be talking to someone who is probably no longer watching this page at this point (a week later). I suggest you go to their talk page. ] (]) 15:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == "if it was a joke".... == | |||
| Obviously, if I'd been serious, I'd have moved it myself.--]<sup>g</sup> 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah. I just finick over categories like that... :-) ] (]) 03:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, and another thing: . I'm always open to lectures and constructive criticism, but just two things. It is best to address my on my talk page, and to check your facts first. You also accused Geogre of edit-waring when I don't believe he has been doing so.--]<sup>g</sup> 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, I'm not going to argue the toss now. I'll note over there that you object. ] (]) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your comment == | |||
| ... has an ]. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == your deleted contribs == | |||
| when the toolserver server yarrow is back up with the database copy I can get you a full list of all your contribs. ] 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought I could see them myself already? <confused> ] (]) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Carcharoth, Ill show you what I mean in a few days. ] 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == rationales == | |||
| I've made a list of comics articles which need rationales at ] which a couple of us are working off to provide rationales. The trouble is there are a lot, and we tend to cherry pick the ones we really want to save. As you can see, there's a lot of star wars images, and trying to work out which ones to keep is time consuming. We're pretty much using a standard template rationale, which is bad form but better than nothing and moves the argument on to the next point, it's now at ]. I'll see what I can do, but I really want to try and do some work on the comics article, I've been pootering on it for nearly three years now and I think it's at the verge of FA, so I'd like to beat the three year deadline. And speaking of deadlines, thanks, I'm glad the rewrite is being noticed. ] <small>] </small> 22:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wiki-en-L== | |||
| You're welcome to post as far as I am concerned, but please be aware that my first response included the wrong link (arggh!!) so it isn't exactly pristine. I'm fine with copy-pasting the contents, as well. ] (]) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh der!!! Never ask me anything before I have consumed the requisite amount of caffeine ;-). In any case, Steve has posted the link to the wiki-en-L list. Nice summary, by the way. ] (]) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: AN thread == | |||
| Hi Gurch. Would you have time to contribute at ]? I presume it was you that made at 01:39, about 25 minutes after the Main Page deletion and history merge by East718. What I'm interested in is how you found out about this? Do you know what communications were taking place? If you could shed any light on this, that would be great. ] (]) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : How did I find out about it? Er... the Main Page was deleted. It's the sort of thing that gets noticed – ] 17:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh. I suppose so. I'm still trying to work out why this seemed to be discussed for a while off-wiki before finding its way on-wiki. Different cultures in different areas of Misplaced Pages, I suppose. ] (]) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please stop trying to pin the blame for this on IRC or some other form of off-wiki discussion. The blame lies entirely with the users who carried it out. They failed to discuss it with anyone else, through any medium, before doing so; how they communicated with each other is not relevant. No, deletions don't show up in watchlists. But the 13 null edits that were made after the page was restored certainly did. These were made between 01:21 and 01:23. I became aware of the issue at 01:24 when I happened to check my watchlist. At 01:25, I noted this in the IRC channel. No discussion was forthcoming. At the same time I was composing an e-mail to Wikitech-l, to notify the developers, which I sent a few minutes later. Then I went to sleep, because I have a life. Yes, I could have raised the issue on the admin noticeboard and half a dozen other places too, but I figured that would happen anyway, as indeed it did – ] 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK. Thanks for clearing that up. Please realise that those who only use on-wiki channels of communication need to be told things like this, as there is no way of leaving people to find out for themselves (as is sometimes done on-wiki). ] (]) 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The noticeboard thread you just pointed me to was started at 03:14; I realize things move fast sometimes but that's really not ''that'' long to wait. And anyone could have gone and looked at the Main Page history themselves and they'd have known just as much as I did – ] 18:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah, you are right. As I've said over there, it is the manually added dummy edits that puzzle me. It looks like there was an off-wiki discussion that went ''"Hey East and Beta, why these edits and the deletion and history merging?" - "Need 5000+ revisions to help avoid main page deletions in future - remember that joke deletion a few days ago? We are trying to fix that." - "But I've just tried to delete and the warning message is not appearing, you are a few short" - "Oops, you are right, how silly of us" - "Don't worry, I'll add some more" - "Thanks!"'' and so on. Do you see what I mean? I apologise if I implied you were taking part in any discussions like that, but it is the conduct of the people on the off-wiki communication channels, not the channels themselves, that needs, as others have said, bright lights shone on them. ] (]) 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: AN thread == | |||
| I've responded on WP:AN regarding Krimpet, Animum, and on-wiki vs. off-wiki discussion. As for the three minutes Maxim waited, I imagine it had to do with him trying to contact the stewards to ensure he wouldn't be de-sysopped. --] (]) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Well said == | |||
| An excellent wiki-philosophy. Indeed, I can think of a couple of senior editors around here where this is the ''only'' effective way of dealing with them - and any co-editing with them requires extensive application of this principle. ] (]) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You're my new crush. - ] (]) 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::New? Who was it before? :-) ] (]) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You really have to stop reading my mind. I was also wondering about what effect the remedy has if there is no enforcement provision agreed to - do admins have to log their blocks at ] or not? Is a remedy without an enforcement provision enforceable? Although I suppose in the long run the remedy itself is mom-and-apple-pie, since it is basically a restating of a policy that applies to all editors. ] (]) 16:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I guess we will find out. ] (]) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I've already seen several cases when this template was removed from the talk pages (understandably). Since the only actual benefit of using it is keeping track of related dabs, maybe we should blank the template so that only category remains? ] (]) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Also stumbled upon ]. What's that? (And what is to be done with it?) ] (]) 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Disambig category only sounds fine. That film stuff one is someone moving something that didn't need to be moved, but still. ] (]) 13:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, ] 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikibreak my eye == | |||
| So I see you're busy on AN/I - well put, again. We really have to stop this synergistic writing, however. Earlier this evening, I made a post to Wikback, saying we really had to step away from this SPA mindset; after all, most of us started off editing a single page or topic area...well, at least this time I got to say it first. ] (]) 08:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, well, I did not edit for most of two days (just archiving and stuff), but I hate seeing indiscriminate blocking like that. I am deadly serious when I say that some accounts around now would have been blocked in their early days under the current climate. Misplaced Pages has changed, but it shouldn't have changed ''that'' much. ] (]) 08:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==JzG== | |||
| I think you're concentrating solely on the negative, and I don't think it reflects well on Misplaced Pages that we often do this to good administrators. The checkuser has just confirmed a nest of twelve socks in three separate groups. The bad blocks were easily picked up and reversed, but the job needed to be done and by doing it I've no doubt that Guy has deterred a number of people who could have tied us up for months over this affair. --] <small>—Preceding ] was added at 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Tony, I'm sorry, but you've missed the point completely. I focused on ''three'' accounts (none of which are the twelve socks you are referring to), one of which was already unblocked, the other one of which was later unblocked, and the third of which I accepted needed to be blocked (Drstones is too close to the legal stuff), but who I hope can be persuaded to edit other articles. I never made a big fuss about the other blocks, which were clearly meatpuppets and or sockpuppets, though some of the meatpuppets might one day edit Misplaced Pages properly. Also, I <u>supported</u> JzG in those other blocks and his handling of the ] situation. I spent a long time explaining why I did this review (it is at the end of ), and Guy and several others have thanked me for this. I'll quote in full what I said: <blockquote>"And I should probably say something about my response to all this. Firstly, I was trying to take a wikibreak when this all sucked me back in, and that explains why I spent most of yesterday sending people e-mails and not posting on-wiki. After I gave that up as a lost cause, I posted all this and the preceding stuff. To forestall criticisms of how I've responded to all this (or maybe it will encourage such criticisms, I don't know, but I should be the last to object to any criticisms people make of me), I will state openly that I am hypersensitive to incidents like this. See ] for an example (and I'm saddened to see how that is ending). I am also aware of Guy's present circumstances (having left two posts to him about that, which I hope were of some comfort to him), and I have to be nice to Guy. My concern here is addressing the ingrained culture that sees blocks like this as acceptable collateral damage. I made a similar long set of posts about the conduct of Betacommand and East718 over the recent Main Page deletion/merge incident. See for how I handled that. I feel that a thorough and systematic handling of incidents like this helps to resolve them properly, make clear what lessons need to be learned, and help the admin corps as a whole improve their conduct. But this can only work if admins accept that they will, ocassionally, be criticised like this, and accept it with good grace, instead of taking it personally." - Carcharoth 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)</blockquote> As I've said over on the talk page of the proposed decision for the MatthewHoffman arbitration case, once something has been resolved either way (either side agrees they were wrong - though sometimes they have to agree to disagree), then I will drop it and move on, and switch to ensuring that lessons are learned and mistakes not repeated (as far as possible). Tony, it might come as a surprise, but supporting someone does ''not'' mean being entirely uncritical. Criticism can play a useful role. Oh, and for the record, Guy ''didn't'' file the checkuser case - someone else did. I agree with Jehochman: the correct way to handle this is to do the sock analysis, and ''then'' block. Blocking and then relying on unblocking and apologies later is risky. See what Trusilver said to Amelia9mm . You had already commented in that thread and showed no interest in anything other than uncritical support of Guy. You are still commenting in that thread without having read all of it. Consider what Paul August and Jrichardstevens said: <blockquote>"It appears that this important principle is being ignored with regularity. It is much better to err on the side of caution in situations like this. Disruptive editors will eventually be identified and dealt with soon enough. Good new editors are a necessary resource for the project. If treated poorly they usually leave becoming a permanent source of bad PR, dissuading many others from participating as well. This is a serious matter. One good editor lost does far more harm to the project than dozens of disruptive editors not blocked at the first possible moment." Paul August </blockquote>{{quotation|1=I just hope incidents like these raise awareness that more checks and balance and monitoring of each others' decisions may be warranted. Carcharoth has gone above and beyond the call of duty here. If he were not trying to raise these issues, I would certainly be gone from this community and be torching the lot of you in my media classroom (which would be erroneous on my part).|2=] (]) }} | |||
| :I suppose you could say that we don't know whether we are getting the balance right, but the second quote above leaves me in no doubt I was right to pursue this matter, though I will note that it was ] who first noted the incorrect block and carried out the unblock. I just followed things up from there. ] (]) 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: The differences between our points of view may be related to my experiences. During the early days of the project my account would regularly be blocked because it was on an IP shared, by my provider, between several hundred users, one or two of whom happened to be persistent vandals. In those days in my opinion we had a healthier, less fetishistic attitude towards blocking. I decry the tendency to see blocking as some kind of blot on an editor's character. | |||
| :: Blocking is a tool, and Guy used the tool well here; he has a good record of using his judgement and taking decisive action where serious abuses such as this are occurring. The bad blocks can be reviewed and reversed, but we should not agonize over the undoubted fact that in such cases we will sometimes temporarily block people who shouldn't have been blocked. An editor who really cares about the project isn't going to mind a brief loss of access if he's made aware of the real problems that led to it. --] 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Surely those blocks of your account were IP blocks and thus not recorded in the block logs? Having said that, I agree with all your points, except ''"Guy used the tools well here"'', and your assessment that the situation was serious enough to warrant indiscriminate blocking. I agree that blocking of the SPAs was the best way to get them to understand that they shouldn't be messing with an article where there were legal concerns, but it ''is'' possible to do that without doing collateral damage. Tony, it is OK to criticise someone. It can even be helpful. There is a list of minor things that Guy forgot to do, but that's not important. The important points are that he could have taken the time to check the list, or waited a full day for more ANI advice before blocking. Either of those would have avoided this. He could also have filed a checkuser case - the checkuser results and the closing admin would have dealt with the AfD vote-stacking, and protecting, deleting or blanking the article would have dealt with legal concerns. Please, go and ''read'' the talk pages of the non-sock (or only 'likely socks') accounts that have objected to their blockings: ], ], ], ], ], ]. Then tell me that this sort of indiscriminate blocking is worth it. Sure, some will stay and edit, but the bad feelings that some now have was totally avoidable. The checkuser would have resulted in the socks being blocked, and that would have been that. What is it that makes the difference between a new editor staying and going? Sure, the ones that want to come back will, but some of the best might not. If this has been unavoidable, I would have supported it, but it was, in fact, avoidable. But I fear we will start to go round in circles here. I have to stop soon, so will look for a reply in the next hour or so, and then log off. ] (]) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : You still seem to think I'm missing the point, even though I've stated my opposition to the fetishization of blocking as plainly as I believe is possible. Obviously your characterization of these blocks as "indiscriminate" isn't helpful. Which was pretty much my original point, really. --] 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not fetishizing blocking. I'm saying it could have been avoided and it would have been more efficient and less bitey to do things another way. Do you see the difference? I too wouldn't mind blocks so much, if only there wasn't so much resistance to unblocking. When you find it a struggle to overturn a dodgy block, either because the admin is missing a point (like we both seem to be doing here), or the community has a collective blind-spot, then it is understandable that there will be resistance to the idea of blocking first and asking questions later. And could you tell me what criteria Guy used to hand out those blocks? To me it looked like he looked through a list of those editing the article or the AfD, and picked some out at random. You do realise that the checkuser he failed to file picked up several accounts that he had missed? It picked up several I'd missed as well, though I did spot ]. My point is that while it wasn't totally indiscriminate, it was by no means discriminating enough - it both included uninvolved accounts (]), and excluded involved accounts (] and others). Have you even read up on the background to all this, yet? I did ask you to go and read those talk pages, you know. ] (]) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Could we do it better? Yes. Could you have managed your response better? Yes. I think a checkuser and a few block adjustments can be handled without resort to the public handwringing that seems to have become a popular means of expression on Misplaced Pages. --] 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Don't worry, Tony. The next time I see you engaged in public handwringing, I'll let you know. I'm sure you will do likewise. ] (]) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| JzG seems to be one of the main people responsible for fetishizing blocks... if not reversed, they turn into bans, and then JzG pounds his chest and insists that the banned people are unpersons and must be treated as pariahs, with all ideas they have ever advocated suppressed and references to them in any way permitted only when part of Two Minute Hates to promote Wikipedian solidarity. By expressing approval for his tactics, people like Tony are acting as enablers for his harmful, abusive style that is doing great damage to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm. You have history with him, right? No, don't answer that. I don't follow everything that happens around here, but thanks for the comment. ] (]) 23:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notes to self== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] (where the quote is) | |||
| *] | |||
| - ] (]) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your e-mail (reproduced here with your permission) == | |||
| 1) I noticed the following ANI thread: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=190224142#Is_it_just_me... | |||
| 2) After noting that one of the blocks had already been questioned, I looked further and discovered that another two (making a total of three) accounts were clearly not "single-purpose accounts" in any sense of that label. | |||
| 3) I e-mailed User:B, User:Jzg and User:Jehochman to point out the problems with these blocks. The latter has replied, B doesn't seem to have read my e-mail yet, and JzG has posted on-wiki since I sent my e-mail to him. | |||
| 4) I noted that you queried the Nomoskedasticity block and got it lifted - but don't seem to have noticed the other two blocks that (in my opinion) were without any justification whatsoever. | |||
| Anyway, here are most of the links I sent to the others: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JzG/wp-stuff&diff=190067231&oldid=189938182 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JzG/wp-stuff&diff=190125218&oldid=190082411 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JzG/wp-stuff&diff=190142450&oldid=190125218 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm | |||
| Oxford Round Table article was created on 13:10, 9 December 2007: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Oxford_Round_Table&oldid=176761914 | |||
| Jrichardstevens: | |||
| Account created 4 November 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&user=Jrichardstevens | |||
| Eight innocuous edits to unrelated articles over a period of around two years. Not the greatest of contributions, but the potential is there for someone who was interested enough to register an account to (one day) start contributing more. Indeed, the foray into Misplaced Pages namespace showed someone who might well have started contributing more. But given his reaction to the block, that may no longer happen. | |||
| Amelia9mm: | |||
| Account created 25 May 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&user=Amelia9mm | |||
| Two minor edits to the article in question. Absolutely no reason to block. | |||
| If you look at the account creation dates for the accounts listed in that ANI thread, you will see that all the accounts, except three, were created in the period from December 2007 to February 2008. Two of those are the ones I've mentioned above. The other one is Drstones: | |||
| Account created August 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&user=Drstones | |||
| And indeed, when we look closer, we see that the initial edits of this account are fine: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Social_capital&diff=prev&oldid=166991026 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hale_Boggs&diff=prev&oldid=173488684 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hale_Boggs&diff=prev&oldid=173488786 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hale_Boggs&diff=prev&oldid=173488880 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=County_Unit_System&diff=prev&oldid=173992593 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=County_Unit_System&diff=prev&oldid=173992965 | |||
| And from later: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Georgia_Bulldogs_football&diff=prev&oldid=178780071 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Georgia_Bulldogs_football&diff=prev&oldid=178780451 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Carl_Sanders&diff=prev&oldid=183890489 | |||
| This can in no way be labelled a "Disruptive single purpose account", and the same comment applies to the other two accounts. For the record, the three accounts that are not, in my opnion, SPAs, are: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Drstones | |||
| I'm left asking myself - was I the only one to bother reviewing *all* the accounts that Guy blocked? Admittedly, I didn't realise until just now that one of the accounts (Franknfair) had been blocked much earlier for legal threats (so *why* did Guy list that account at ANI?) and that Guy seems to have failed to block one of the accounts (Coligny). I'm increasingly left asking what is going on here? How can ANI be so bad at doing a review like that? Why did Guy take a single reply in that thread, after it had been up for three hours, as an OK to indefinitely block the lot of them? | |||
| Carcharoth | |||
| :Thanks for this e-mail. I agree that Guy's blocks of supposed disruptive SPAs appear - to the extent that I have reviewed them - to have been inappropriate and that the accounts appear to be neither disruptive nor SPAs. I am not surprised, though, that the ANI thread was unproductive, due to the number of involved issues and accounts. I regularly patrol ] and am used to responding to individual requests in that context. This, in my experience, usually yields the correct results, precisely because blocks usually do need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. ] (]) 22:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the reply. I actually found the ANI thread to be fairly productive. Have you had a chance to follow up the various links in that long thread? ] (]) 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==A quick thanks== | |||
| For your oversight regarding the wikidrama at ]. As you'll see, I recused myself from the entire issue for precisely this reason. Talk about ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow. I like your quote : ''"The minute there's a wikidrama like this it's better to find something else to edit on the 'pedia. You can guarantee that the admin mop, wielded by fallible human beings, will be dirty by the end of it all."'' That is an instant classic. ] (]) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: As Zenwhat has created the Tao of Misplaced Pages for us, we need some wiki-]s, too. This one would correspond to the saying of Bokonon: "Sometimes the ''pool-pah'' exceeds the power of humans to comment." ]]]] 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Glad you liked it! No offence intended, by the way, it's just something I've observed ;-) ]<sup>]</sup> 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Reply == | |||
| Indeed - yet another reason also why I am a firm believer that there should be a transparent process by which one can apply to have blocks struck off the record, at the moment it requires about the level of a BLP violation and a very secretive process for that to happen, and I'd guess the great majority of such requests are ignored or refused. As an example, ], if you examine his block log, should by any measure have a clean one - one was issued completely in error to the wrong entity, the other was such an egregious violation of WP:BLOCK that the admin who made it ended up at ArbCom and ultimately resigning under a cloud. The lone block in my log was a case of a pre-emptive block which was subsequently resolved in discussions which should have taken place before, rather than after, any consideration of such. I cite these two cases merely because I'm aware of them, but there are hundreds of others, most of them not involving long-serving administrators (it is always at the back of my mind that were there to be such a process, the two of us would be in a lot better position to action our requests than, say, Jrichardstevens). So I think there should be room for other long-standing users and admins to make such requests on other people's behalf. That being said, though, any such system would need to be safeguarded so that legitimate blocks are not removed, and we don't open up a minefield where tendentious users can avoid scrutiny. Just my thoughts. ] 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be nice if there was some body to appeal to have a block removed. I know Arbcom is busy, so their probably not a great choice, and the last thing we need are more red-tape groups like BAG or mailing-list based operations like Oversight. I'm wondering how the community would feel of a committee of retired arbcommers and medcommers reviewing requests to remove blocks from the record? Obviously they'd have to have left the committee in good standing, but it would put them and their community-based trust to use. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think expunging of blocks, however transparent, is needed. What ''is'' needed is for those unblocking to do so in good grace. To make clear when unblocking whether the block is merely being shortened, or whether an unclear or unjustified block is being undone. And it is very important to use neutral language in a block log summary. There is nothing more annoying than persuading someone to unblock, and than to see them do so in bad grace with a snippy comment like "second chance" or "unblocking" (with no reason), and leaving the sometimes baseless allegations in the initial block log unanswered. A transparent way to ''annotate'' block logs would be one possibility, but then that leads to edit warring over what a log should say! I don't think the current system is too bad, because at the end of the say, as long as the block log summary is not offensive, and apologies are made where needed, a short block shouldn't be a big deal for established users. New users are a different matter of course, but they come in a thousand different varieties, and picking out the useful types of new editors from the 'bad' ones is sometimes difficult. ] (]) 00:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Still on break? You've been away for 30 minutes already :) == | |||
| Email request for you. Cheers! ] (]) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that got sorted, right? I do need a nice long break, so that wikibreak notice is staying there until I can't ignore it any longer... ] (]) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image backlog== | |||
| So we haven't had a new run of BCB since Jan 24, and there are only 50 days left to become ''compliant'' for foundation purposes. I know you were looking into a schedule of when we could expect '''big''' runs of images. Has anything come of that? I really don't want to get to 10 days left and have a backlog of like 20,000 images all at once. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You really need to ask ]. I wouldn't know. Sorry! ] (]) 23:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Guessing he was watching us :) ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well I've got a nice 2000 logo backlog here ] if ] ever gets off the ground. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And Betacommand's talk page turned red-hot with complaints. Would have been nice to have some warning. Would have been able to help field angry users. Hammersoft has been nice an diplomatic at times, and not so diplomatic at other times, but then he was rather alone there, apart from Beta. ] (]) 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice board == | |||
| Would you be adverse to the creation of a noticeboard for WP:ME? - ] 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure what you mean. Could you explain a bit further? I vaguely remember seeing a reference somewhere to the creation of a Fictional topics noticeboard. Would it be a subpage of that? Or do you mean a subpage of the WikiProject? The WikiProject talk page seems to be a de facto noticeboard at the moment, but though it is better than it was (it fell into a bit of disarray when Mirlen went on a very long break), that talk page, and the project itself, could be better organised. So what exactly are you proposing? ] (]) 00:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Example: ] - ] 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounds like a great idea. Do you want to propose it at the project talk page? ] (]) 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok, did so : ) - ] 07:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Email == | |||
| FYI, you have email. ] (]) 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. Replied. ] (]) 08:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on ] were unjustified. It also states that ]'s adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' '''<small>]</small>''' 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vanishing users== | |||
| Rather than users who exercise their ] renaming their accounts and then going around removing their old name at random, wouldn't it be better to set up some formal process where they request their name be removed, and then a bot, who has setting to make sure archives and formatting aren't broken, goes around and replaces the names with something other than a generic name. Like say a link to a page descbing the ]? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That would be better, yes. If you have time to nurse that idea into a full-blown process... :-) It depends really how many people make this request. People do have the right to vanish, but if we make it too easy, then more people will abuse it. The right to vanish is being legitimately exercised here, but in the past people have abused it. ] (]) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note also that the bot would need to look for variants of the name. For example, where a user name is a full name, just the surname may be used as a short hand in some places. The with / without space form variants would also need consideration. Also, some care is needed. The surname in a topical example is also the title of a main sapce page, FYI. ] (]) 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Replacing just use of the Christian name is another consideration. In general, as that is a common Christian name, that wouldn't really be needed. There would be a lot of false positives there. A Google search should find most of the "surname alone" hits if you restrict it to namespaces. ] (]) 06:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please note that the amount I know about actual coding for a bot could be inscribed on the back of a smallish postage stamp in largish letters... with space to spare. The programming I did was a ''long'' time ago. My intent was to point out some issues to consider. :) As far as christian names go, I think the specific case is unproblematic, but the generic needs consideration. Suppose we had a user Zaphod Beeblebrox who was vanishing - the uses of "Zaphod" may be quite suggestive - particularly on user talk pages where threads would point to the new name. In a discussion thread at AN/I or in XfD (to choose two possible examples), you could get abbreviations like "concur with ZaphodB". Worse, if the user was named in a thread title, it isn't that helpful for the username to be removed from the title if there are abbreviations like "Zaphod", "ZaphodB", and "ZB" dotted through the thread. I think the bot is a good idea, but there is a challenge in the coding! Best, ] (]) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well you could get 90% of them by loading the users contributions and checking the diffs automatically. That would only leave comments by others on that user. And usually that a simple username search (without code formatting). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == New Image for Streamline Cars == | |||
| ] - ] | |||
| With the rampant deletion of historic photos from Misplaced Pages I though you would like to see an addition. I hope my non-renewed copyright research survives on the Commons. -- ] (]) 04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks good. Thanks for the note. ] (]) 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikiproject Academic Journals Collaboration notice == | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 5px solid #708090; background: #F5F5F5; line-height:1.5" | |||
| | ] | |||
| | <center>The current '''] ]''' is<br>'']''<br/>Please help to improve this article to the ].</center> | |||
| |} | |||
| ==random images== | |||
| The page you want is ]. No I don't have the copyvios since I was generateing sets of 20 then closeing the tabs as soon as I counted the templates.] 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, thanks. So ], ], ], and so on, should work? Ooh. This random sampling is addictive! :-) ] (]) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mostly due to the way deletion is done on wikipedia it creates a lot of ah paperwork. You should also note welcome templates are pretty common.] 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm currently trying to make the blurb at the top of ] tell people to go to ] for more information, such as these parameters for specifying namespaces. The help page is already linked, but it would be nice to have something more explicit along the lines of "for more information about how to use the pages listed here, see ]". Maybe I'm too used to having things spelled out like that and everyone else just clicks on the link? ] has deleted revisions and was edited by ], one of those nice developer MediaWiki scripts. Having said that, ] is a bit strange! :-) ] (]) 23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image exhaustion== | |||
| So I can tell your probably reaching a bit of an exhaustion point with the whole non-free image issue. I know I am after fixing 3200 images. I've seen the statements on ways to improve it in the future, and I'd say the single biggest thing would be to recode the Upload screen. If when a non-free license was created, the user was presented with individual form fields for each field of the FUR template, and '''couldn't''' submit the image without filling them all out, that would solve 95% of bad drive-by FU images. But I don't know coding, so I can't implment it. And I filed a bugzilla, but obviously its low on the priority chain in the entire MediaWiki universe. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, as I suspected, ] is be interpreted the way I thought it would be. I'd really suggest it be merged with the other page you created that has a neutral title and tone, and either deleted or redirected. I'm thinking for second how a page like ] or ] would be dealt with. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == MickMacNee == | |||
| Responded on my talk page (summary, the block appears good). ]] ] 13:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re:My talk page== | |||
| Sorry for not responding to your apology. I meant to, got distracted, forgot that I hadn't. Anal archiving is my thing. I hate long talk pages. Anyway, there was no need for you to apologize, although I do appreciate it. I'm really just annoyed with the whole situation, and it's not even my bot. Your participation in the discussion doesn't bother me, but I can't deal with some of the others. It's too frustrating as I'm outspoken and suck at censoring myself, so I'm just not commenting anymore, at least not on that page, and not with people who make false claims and utterly ridiculous statements to try to make their weak position seem stronger. Again, I'm sorry I didn't respond right away. I'm not in the habit of ignoring messages, as I agree it's rude, and I didn't intentionally ignore you. Best regards, ''']''']''']''' 14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey, thanks! :-) That's really nice of you, and I'm glad that's all sorted out. ] (]) 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == BC Pages == | |||
| Sorry - missed the thread because it wasn't one of the ones I was following and didn't mention the bot or images in the header. I moved it into the subpage while people are discussing the propriety of the page because I don't want to have even more disjointed discussion as a result of the move. ]] 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:43, 18 February 2008
Why did you revert my comment???! Ain't my fault my broadband can't even process his f*****g page...or yours.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)