Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 21 November 2014

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Just blocked user Apex Horizon

Hello. There's a lot of clean-up needed after them, both revdel'ing (almost all edits are grossly insulting edits on BLPs) and deletion of insulting redirects. Thomas.W 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on it now. Joy of joys. Just how I like to spend my weekend! FFS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to see the end of that little drama. BTW, I mentioned it at WP:ANI without realising someone had done the same here, so that debate will need to be closed. This is Paul (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've closed the ANI-report. And thanks for both the block and the clean-up! Thomas.W 19:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Just for the record, ANI was absolutely the right course of action (even with a simultaneous AIV report). A case like that qualifies as an emergency, and you need admin eyes fast. The mess can be cleaned up and the dots connected later—the priority is to get this maniac blocked. If you come across him again, please do alert me here or by email (as well as using every other method you can think of to attract the attention of any passing admin if I'm offline). Oh, and next time you hear somebody say we have too many admins or something else derogatory to admins in general, spare a thought for the half an hour I'll never get back for cleaning up that mess! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd make you aware of Inspector Don (talk · contribs) in case you hadn't come across the account yet. This edit undid my reversion of something Apex Horizon had done the previous day. I don't know enough about the topic to know if the change was done in good faith, but his other edits seem to be reasonably ok and nothing's happened on the account since Sunday. I'm probably being over-cautious and it may just be a coincidence, but thought it could be worth keeping an eye on. This is Paul (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. They seem to actually have an interest in the subject area, so they could be legit. They're not posting obscene misogyny all over the place, so I'll err on the side of caution for the time being. If they become disruptive, it'll be caught quickly; if not I suppose it's a moot point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello all. For the record, I'm unable to comment on the edits posted by Apex Horizon since all appear to be inaccessible. The contribution as related by This is Paul is definitely not vandalism - which is strange I know. Could an innocent account have been hijacked by someone nearby? Could the password have come automatically at the station? I don't know the answer but just to go on topic for everybody's information. Ethnic Cleansing is a term that generally refers to a land in that certain groups may be expelled from it. Sometimes the victims are the "object" of the verb but that tends to be incorrect, moreover insulting to the same individuals when they realise what they are saying about themselves. Surprisingly, it was coined as a euphemism. If I were to say my own expulsion from a certain land was the result of "cleansing" then I am inadvertently acceding to the perpetrator's claim that my people were that for which the land needed to be "sterilized". Cleanse means deep-clean. Either way, there we all go and I hope there will be no problems on this subject. Anyone is free to write on my talk page for further discussion. Inspector Don (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Inspector Don: Thanks for dropping by. Paul was just wondering whether you might be the same person as Apex Horizon (because you undid Paul's revert of Apex Horizon's edit), but it seems you're not, so there's nothing to worry about. You won't be able to see Apex Horizon's other edits because I've Revision Deleted them as grossly offensive. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, looks like it was him after all. This is Paul (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well they evidently weren't who they said they were. I've asked the blocking admin whether they were related to our friend. My gut tells me this goes further back than Apex Horizon/3AM XXX. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

1RR problems

Hi, You are right that AE is not the right place for theoretical discussions on merits of current defitinion of 1RR.

I think the main problem is the lack of definition of "revert". One interpretation is that a partial revert is anything that undoes another user's work - so any edit that deletes or replaces a single letter, including fixing a typo, is a revert. Another interpretation that revert is returning a piece of text to a state that it existed in previously. Your interpretation now was that there is another criteria for revert - the editor has to be aware of the previous edit they are undoing.

For 1RR I think most of the problems can be avoided by re-defining it as "do not commit an edit that was already done in the last 24 hours". This would handle the following situations better than current definition:

• A user re-applying their own controversial edit that was reverted by someone else, violating BRD. Now re-applying would be performing the same edit and would violate 1RR. Instead the user who did the original edit would have to use the talk page to reach consensus on restoring the edit.
• Group revert war. N users performing an edit, while M other users undoing the edit, each doing it only once per day and not violating current 1RR. The outcome is determined by relative sizes of N and M. With the new definition, the first one of the N users would perform the edit, then the first of the M users would revert it, and the next of the N users would not re-apply the change since it would violate the rule. Instead all N+M would be forced to discuss the merits of the edit.

The definition can be extended to 3RR or any number, even or odd. Do you see any problem with it? “WarKosign” 20:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for dropping by. I'll mull this over and get back to you tonight or tomorrow probably. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

bump “WarKosign” 07:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wlglunight93 and arb enforcement

HJ, noticed you didn't leave a talk page message, which is required by the DS procedures... Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the reminder. I'll sort it when I've decided whether or not to indef him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've now indef'd him and completed the paperwork. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator assistance

Could you pass your eyes over the editing at Rochester and Strood by-election, 2014 and pass it on to a suitable admin for action- it stops being an issue on Thursday at 10pm. I don't wish to take this any further personally being too close to a previous sitting MP. Facebook are having similar problem- and it that case the police have become involved. Two of the candidates are engaged in a poster war on the ground, and WP needs to demonstrate NPOV and UNDUE. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Clem, I see quite a bit of back-and-fort. I could fully protect it, but I'd be inundated with complaints because lots of people are going to want to edit it over the next few days. Also, since the servers in the good ol' US of A, WMF Legal's position is likely to be that UK electoral law isn't relevant (at least to Misplaced Pages itself, obviously applicability to individual editors is another matter). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Santa Claus Doesn't Exist

User:Santa Claus Doesn't Exist appears to be a vandal-only account. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry—trying to read the ArbCom candidate statements and block vandals at the same time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE#Wlglunight93

• Wlglunight93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keramiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You're the last admin to block this editor, and you used a duration of 3 months. Now they are reported again at AE, this time for evading their block by using Keramiton as a sock. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93. Why am I telling you this? You're the admin who blocked Keramiton. Anyway, why don't you complete the circle by taking whatever action you think best at WP:AE#Wlglunight93. I doubt there will be much controversy either way. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I thought I'd see if any other admins wanted to chip in, but I think there was only one way it was going. I've indef'd him, concurrent with a one-year AE block, and closed the AE thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

RfPP

Hi HJ - do you think the RfC at RfPP needs formal closure? It doesn't really seem necessary to me, but it's been listed at ANRFC so I thought I would check in just in case it would be useful. Cheers, Sunrise (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Not really. The outcome is clear. I'm just waiting on technical implementation. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 11:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Sunrise (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Blp

You missed a spot. On a related note, do you think there is a higher standard as to what can be kept in article histories (not revdeleted) for BLPs?--64.233.173.170 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)aka Googleman

Thanks. I was asleep when that happened (it was 05:00 here), but I see Yngvadottir has beaten me to that one, and Drmies RevDel'd the rest and Courcelles protected the page, so I missed a good party! As a rule, yes, the threshold for RevDel on a BLP (or for content about living people posted elsewhere on the wiki) is lower than for other matters. Trivial vandalism shouldn't be RevDel'd, but anything that would cause the subject significant distress or sully their reputation should be. That's not what Misplaced Pages is about, and it serves no encyclopaedic purpose, so we lose nothing by deleting it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw the RFPP request go by and started blocking the hell out of those editors, figuring it wasn't an attack but rather one person with a bunch of accounts, and that's why I didn't protect the article after I was done. I thought I revdeleted them all, so thanks. These edits are, in my opinion, good examples of what needs to be scrubbed. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey HJ! Hope you've been fine, my friend. I was wondering if you could have a look at Talk:El Marino/GA1; nope, it's not for you to review it, but rather to comment on an accusation made towards me, of a conflict of interest. Thank you in advance! Diego Grez (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diego, I've left a note there. I don't know whether it will have any effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Avalon: talk page

Hello HJ Mitchell, thanks for page-protecting Avalon; is it not policy to protect article talk pages? because the edit war is still raging there: Noyster (talk), 20:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's generally against policy to protect the talk page (and the RfPP request, btw, was explicitly for the article, not the talk page; you need to use {{lt}} instead of {{la}} or talk pages). But as it happens, it's a moot point as I've just indef'd one of the parties to the edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sweet Xeper has a sockpuppet at IP 151.34.39.154 and the edit war is continuing. Cagwinn (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller has blocked the IP. If they come back again we can look at other methods. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} 21:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

What?

I assume you were joking with that edit summary, but it's hard to leave that alone. --AmaryllisGardener 17:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing. While I have to agree we have lost a valued contributor, that was a bit over the top. I think all concerned have overreacted just a little bit too much here. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've e-mailed him. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Mitch, I should agree. The edit summary was not fair to editors. I've known you for so long, but don't recall you losing your cool like this. Anyway, am around, so ping me if you wish anything. Wifione 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• I completely and wholeheartedly agree with every word of that edit summary. LHM 17:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody please explain this to me: if we have to be nice to the trolls, but we drive away our most dedicated editors in repugnant displays of contempt for their contributions, how have the trolls not won? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thomas' retirement was a surprise to me. I was in the neutral, but the opposes didn't seem harsh to me. That's coming from an editor that feels that RfA is a horribly broken process, the problem being harsh opposes. Like I said, it was a very big surprise. I don't know why it had to end that way. --AmaryllisGardener 17:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly clear to me. If you'd spent several years doing dirty jobs and getting abuse from trolls/vandals/POV pushers/sockpuppets/long-term abusers, and then asked for more tools to make your life (and everyone else's life) easier, only to have scorn poured on the request, for the most part by people who have no idea what they're talking about (look at the number of experienced admins who deal with that kind of abuse on a daily basis in the support section; I don't see any in the oppose section), you'd be pissed off. And you don't answer my question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do people feel they have to be "mean" to anyone? Isn't that what trolls want? I didn't see much contempt for Thomas W.'s contributions; I saw legitimate criticism about his demeanor, which both you and him did not take very well at all.- MrX 18:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any "mean"ness in the diffs there. I see nitpicking of an excellent candidate who would have been much more useful to the project as an admin, and a few terse comments to people who wouldn't have understood anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I found my own failed RfA to be quite disheartening and it put me off for a few days. Admins who I'd never worked with were digging through my edit history to find examples of my failures, instead of looking at the greater benefits (like a lighter workload) that my participation would bring. Meanwhile, the admins I was most familiar with weren't commenting and I couldn't ask them to per WP:CANVASSING. I thought adminship was more of a trust issue, which I felt was something I could easily demonstrate as having earned, but nope. The community found fault with my AfD noms up to that point, and assumed that rather than realizing my shortcomings and improving, that I would continue to make the same mistakes. At the time that felt like the opposite of AGF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mitch, for what it's worth, I agree with you and I regret not having supported Thomas while it was still possible. Guess I should now wait patiently for the "cops" to catch me. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)