![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
Hey. Over the past several months, a long-term vandal has been sneakily changing information related to charts and certifications on Green Day articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002 and its archive for the background. Lately, semi-protection has stopped being effective, as the master has swapped to regularly using sleepers exclusively for the semi-protected articles while continuing to vandalize articles in an ever-increasing topic area (expanding from Green Day to The Who, Kelly Clarkson, and Fall Out Boy, for instance). The community hasn't been able to effectively deal with this vandalism. As at this diff, requests for full protection on particularly hard-hit articles have been declined (possibly rightfully so, as the protection policy is unclear on if full protection can be used for sockpuppetry). The obvious next step, in my opinion, is WP:50/300. We obviously can't keep pumping editor hours into cleaning up after this master indefinitely until the master tires. Since the community hasn't yet agreed on the use of 50/300 outside of ArbCom sanctions, would it be a good idea to somehow involve ArbCom in assessing this long-term vandalism and potentially authorizing the use of 50/300 protection on articles affected by this sockmaster? The facts aren't under dispute here and the editor is already indefinitely blocked, so a full case seems unnecessary. I'm not familiar with ArbCom, so I have no idea how to go about this. ~ Rob Talk 02:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Edit filters definitely won't, since this involves just changing a few numbers within tables. The articles affected right now are the four listed, but this really does need broad approval since he'll just pop up in another somewhat similar article. I'm stepping away from all this for 24 hours since this is getting a tad frustrating. I don't see any of the editors opposing 30/500 volunteering to watchlist the 100+ pages I have on my watchlist to combat this sneaky vandalism (both pages the puppeteer had edited and pages I think he's likely to edit in the future). ~ Rob Talk 21:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
On 22 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Galdieria sulphuraria, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the red alga Galdieria sulphuraria grows well at pH between 0–4 and temperatures up to 56°C—among the most extreme environments known for a eukaryote? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Galdieria sulphuraria. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Galdieria sulphuraria), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I realise coming here without talking about an actual article may be foolhardy, but can I interest you (and your talk page stalkers) in User:Ritchie333/Userbox Suede? Having had to close or hat too many discussions over the last 24 hours, it does come to mind for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
... for " Wikipedia:If you're that pissed off, put down the keyboard and go outside. (Why is that still a red link?)" - next time, please vote on different topics with a new time stamp, then you'll get just a thank-you-click ;) - Today: most welcome feast of joy, pictured. I was cited to ANI, - what do you think? I told our friend who outed himself as male ("Because if I were female, I might've grown some resistance to this bullshit.") that being blocked may be better. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Blocks are a powerful extinguisher and their long-term benefits are proven. Wikipedia's blocking culture has not contributed towards the deterioration of discourse on the site. Izkala ( talk) 12:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Missing cat dance: Today's precious went to a user whose user page is all about a cat, infobox included, - cheered me up a bit, a year after Dreadstar appeared on the German Main page. So did a dialogue here, after "Avoid the infobox topic, for your health" -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
go outside |
---|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Floridean starch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cryptophyte. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Floridean starch at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk) 00:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
On 3 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Floridean starch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that most red algae store energy from the sun as Floridean starch? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Floridean starch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Floridean starch), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw you deleted Template:Official websites after a TfD. It seems one subpage, Template:Official websites/single, accidentally got left behind. Would you mind G8ing it? Thanks. – void xor 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
10 July |
It took only 300 years to restore her good name. The image is not free, - any kitten that could go with the message? (The statue image is not free. It would be if in Germany.) - She didn't appeal. I noticed with pleasure that the arbcom issued two messages yesterday restoring the names of editors, and still do believe that arbcom might look "self-critically" at previous rulings from time to time even if the people don't appeal. (Background: when the witch article TFA was removed from the Main page on Halloween 2010, I met the dark side of Wikipedia for the first time, after a year of merry innocence.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
OR, you've been clueful about RfA debates for many years. I don't really know where to turn; I'll just throw some things out, and maybe you can help me add them up. Here, we're down to 540 active admins. We were losing around 80 per year like clockwork until last year, when there was a pause, but now we've lost 43 in half a year again (I always measure from Jan 1). My hypothesis is that the pause last year had something to do with less-active admins realizing there was a problem and stepping up to do work that needed doing; but of course, that labor pool is a limited resource (and getting smaller), especially in a volunteer organization like Wikipedia. WP:RFA promotions are at a record low. In the most recent RfA, the main objection seemed to be lack of experience; most voters didn't want to quantify that as a specific number of years, but I think it's a fair reading that the opposes were looking for something like 2 years of experience, at least in this case. Recent discussions at WP:VPR#5th RfA reform got nowhere. And then there's this RfC, which no one has closed yet ... and I can see why. In the RfC, parallels are being drawn to WP:RM, WP:TFD and WP:CFD, where non-admins have in recent years been allowed to close certain discussions, and there doesn't seem to be any substantive argument against the recent practice. This RfC attempts to extend similar rights to non-admins at WP:RfD, but the voters are sharply divided, and many would consider this a "no consensus" result. I'm at a loss what to do here. It's easy to see what would happen if we followed the implied advice of some of the opposers: if we pushed some of the more avid and competent non-admin regulars at RfD over to RfA before they had their two years of experience, or whatever is needed these days, the experience would be likely to sour them. I don't know why the numbers of active admins continue to decline, but I imagine that if it were possible for them to get more help of various kinds from non-admins, they might feel less besieged (and perhaps be less likely to leave). These days, I spend most of my time on copyediting software, which I hope will be helpful for Wikipedians some day, but if I weren't doing that, I would certainly be spending more time on the admin problem, and I feel somewhat guilty that I'm not. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Deleting the last part ... I don't think it would pass. I really don't know what to do. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gene Brown (professor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me. I'm now a member of the Personal acquaintances project. Those who have this template shouldn't be investigated for sockpuppetry. For security reasons, I also no longer make edits at a public computer. Fixer88 ( talk) 17:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Gene Brown (professor) at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
97198 (
talk) 10:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Opabinia regalis. You deleted Template:American Experience episodes on 01:28, 20 June 2016. How do I restore it? Thanks. Mitchumch ( talk) 19:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
16 July 2016 |
---|
... on a centenary of a performance, - and thank you for being around in a refreshing inspiring way! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's now at ARCA. My motion would be: for the rest of the year, the word infobox is taboo, - people edit those things like images and tables, nice add-ons to articles, in good faith and on 1RR. (Did you know that in the original case, which was my first so I didn't know what arbs mean by motion, I placed an infobox for Verdi in that section, which is now in the article ;) - My little memorial piece for the young man who died too soon is on the Main page, A Requiem in Our Time. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
On 8 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gene Brown (professor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Gene Brown taught the same biochemistry course for 50 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gene Brown (professor). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Gene Brown (professor)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 19:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisa Steiner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Development. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your excellent work as an arbitrator. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC) |
Whenever I peek at the arbitration pages, I am consistently impressed by the soundness of your analysis and the thoughtfulness of your comments. Your comments often parallel what I would have written in the same spot if I were still on the Committee, although that is not my basis for thinking you are doing a fine job. As for brevity, remember Einstein's admonition that "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler than that." Most importantly, I hope you are finding the work more rewarding than you sometimes let on on this page. Best regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
life is too short |
---|
Actually when I grow up, I want to be Opabinia. Whenever I start to write something, she manages to beat me to it, having written pretty much what I wanted to say, but much better than I would have written it. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 03:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I saw your recent statement on my WP:ARC case. I have pointed out some relevant things in my section of the thread. [1] I thought I'd draw your attention to it. If this is not necessary, or if this is a breach of protocol, please let me know. Cute kitten, by the way. :) Debresser ( talk) 13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
And again. [2] Debresser ( talk) 00:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Debresser}}
, but I don't have my sound on so didn't hear that bell. There is also nothing in the notification area about it.
Debresser (
talk) 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence#Please enforce the word limits in the interest of fairness -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment you are expressing, but would like to caution that I feel there is a murky line between slowing something down and dragging something out. I fear it is difficult to judge in this situation whether the benefit of slowing down to relax and reorganize will outweigh the harm of stretching out an already lengthy and stressful situation. I am glad though either way to see someone looking out for another's interest. M. A. Bruhn ( talk) 02:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Although the point is probably moot due to this case going to be accepted, I was wondering if you are aware of any alternatives to a full-blown Arbcom case other than letting this die down on its own. I would support such an alternative, but feel letting it die down is not appropriate. I will wait for the arbcom discussions to begin my arguments, but a brief description of what I will argue and the reason why I went from wanting this to die down to seeing it addressed is due increased discouragement that an editor can experience in a negative admin/non-admin encounter, and how public misbehavior by an admin can sanction such behavior and lead to a chilling effect on its reporting. I will present evidence along these lines where a user with a clean block log and years of activity expresses such discouragement and retires several months later, and I will ask how a user could possibly feel comfortable bringing up concerns of harassment or personal attacks to ANI after witnessing an admin brought to ANI on charges of harassment justify their usage of the terms "mentally challenged" and "liar" and justify bringing back 2-year-old disputes out of nowhere, and be admonished by no one other than a single non-admin user who is instead admonished by others who link them to an essay telling them that it's easier to demand an apology than to give one, and who state that the admin had "done did it again, :-)" and ask "let's everyone just drop it". Before I saw this, and more, I had thanked a user at ANI requesting to let the drama there die down, but after seeing issues come up time and again to be let to die down I decided that I wanted this to be addressed in some capacity, although I did not expect a month-long Arbcom case. If you know of any other alternatives to a full-blown Arbcom case then I would be interested in hearing them. By the way if this is inappropriate to bring up here then feel free to delete my post and I will just wait for the Arbcom case to begin. M. A. Bruhn ( talk) 02:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the revision deletion on my user talk while I was offline. It seems very obvious that this is a socking IP of Foleo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), given the context of that section and the past usage of socking IPs. The timing of the edits also came shortly after I protected Criticism of the Quran, an article where he's previously edit warred and where another socking proxy IP 137.74.154.148 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has recently popped up. Mind taking a look at this and determining whether there's enough to indefinitely block Foleo on the behavioral evidence? He's about to come off a block for edit warring and socking which I placed. Given my past administrative interactions with him and now his harassment of me, it seems like this is a proper time to hand this off to another uninvolved admin rather than press on. ~ Rob13 Talk 13:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
On 18 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Buchanan (biologist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology biochemist Jack Buchanan published his work on purine biosynthesis in a series of more than 20 papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Buchanan (biologist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, John Buchanan (biologist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Atsme 📞 📧 21:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
On 22 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agnoprotein, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that agnoprotein (pictured) is found in two polyomaviruses that can cause human disease, JC virus and BK virus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agnoprotein. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Agnoprotein), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Purnell W. Choppin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnes Hospital. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
On 17 August, you blocked 72.198.49.108 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a week for evading a block. Which block was he evading? The IP is problematic today—and may also have been editing from other IPs—and I'm trying to establish a history to see if a longer block is justified. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Opabinia regalis. In regard to your recent edit where you said it was not your intention to imply my request was in anything but good faith, I wish to say: I did not mean to ever imply that you had. I am sorry for not being clear enough on this point; you have been wonderful in all I have seen. Best regards.-- John Cline ( talk) 02:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I saw your ping while I was at the circus with my kids, sorry for not responding to you sooner. I'm certain that Arbcom are no idiots, and therefore I'm certain I'm completely and utterly confused as to why a case can be raised in such a biased manner. Banedon pinged at least 16 editors with whom I may have had any kind of conflict, and George Ho jumped onboard, pinging another eight or so. So to enter any kind of comment this case is to invite further lynching from around 20 or so editors, all of whom have more time and inclination to see the back of me than I do to attempt to defend any position I may or may not have. My experiences with Arbcom have been generally very negative, not necessarily the outcomes but the manner in which the trials are conducted and the obvious invested interest of some (just some) of the sitting members. I am staggered that canvassing on such a level has gone without any kind of sanction, and I am disappointed (but not surprised) that claims of sockpuppetry and failure to collaborate have gone without counter question. That I am forced, daily, to try to maintain (almost single-handedly it feels) the integrity of the main page from numerous slack-minded and slack-handed editors inevitably ends in conflict and me being the bad guy. I've never abused my admin position. I've only ever thought of the readers. But I won't be dragged further into this debacle other than to take on the corollary actions of seeking sanctions against those who falsely accuse me of sockpupptery or compare me to Donald Trump. The latter is the most demeaning thing I have ever seen and I am sickened to my core. Good luck to you and the rest of the Arbcom, I think I see how this pans out, and I don't think it net gains Wikipedia, but when did that ever count in such cases? My best, The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
You're like the only sensible, sane voice around here these days. Glad you're back and sticking around. - NQ (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
Hi there, if you've got the time, I'd love to hear what you alluded to at the NPP RfC in terms of alternative means of improving management of the incoming articles. I'm eager for the NPP situation to be addressed (I've def gotten bitten by people with a range of experience) and sooner rather than later given quantity of new contributors who can be affected by even one bad patroler, but if a better remedy can be readily identified, I know I'd be interested to hear it! Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I saw a big chunk of text and I just had to read it and respond.- ha! See, most people say "I saw a big chunk of text so I didn't read it..." ;)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Affinity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Opabinia regalis. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You mentioned a template that would ping all the ArbCom. If you're serious about that, I could whip something up à la {{ @MILHIST}}. Miss seeing you at TFD! Primefac ( talk) 23:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Relist bias when you have a chance and providing your thoughts? With AfD showing backlogs recently, I think it might be a helpful reminder that kicking discussions down the road usually isn't helpful. I'd like a set of eyes on it before I start "putting it out there" (and potentially embarrassing myself with any typos, etc). Cheers! ~ Rob13 Talk 22:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Your talk without a kitten? No. Wikipedia must be much better now that a page listing a few operas and bios was deleted, - expect a drastic decline in infobox debates now that 21 articles such as Max Reger no longer invite to be "targeted". (And see what happens when I try to avoid the topic.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi OR, I note your post here and thought a brief reply here might be more appropriate as the MH case is going to close any second. Sadly, I agree with you that the key decision has been made, but I disagree that it was to not desysop MH. That decision was (I would guess) fairly easy for arbitrators to reach once the quality of evidence was clear. For me, the key decision was that sanctioning non-parties with no notification is permissable. The TRM case is pretty obviously wandering in that same direction. I recognise you have characterised this issue as a "rough edge" (unless I am misunderstanding you) but it's actually a core issue of fairness and principle and it isn't going away. EdChem ( talk) 13:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
Hey. Over the past several months, a long-term vandal has been sneakily changing information related to charts and certifications on Green Day articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002 and its archive for the background. Lately, semi-protection has stopped being effective, as the master has swapped to regularly using sleepers exclusively for the semi-protected articles while continuing to vandalize articles in an ever-increasing topic area (expanding from Green Day to The Who, Kelly Clarkson, and Fall Out Boy, for instance). The community hasn't been able to effectively deal with this vandalism. As at this diff, requests for full protection on particularly hard-hit articles have been declined (possibly rightfully so, as the protection policy is unclear on if full protection can be used for sockpuppetry). The obvious next step, in my opinion, is WP:50/300. We obviously can't keep pumping editor hours into cleaning up after this master indefinitely until the master tires. Since the community hasn't yet agreed on the use of 50/300 outside of ArbCom sanctions, would it be a good idea to somehow involve ArbCom in assessing this long-term vandalism and potentially authorizing the use of 50/300 protection on articles affected by this sockmaster? The facts aren't under dispute here and the editor is already indefinitely blocked, so a full case seems unnecessary. I'm not familiar with ArbCom, so I have no idea how to go about this. ~ Rob Talk 02:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Edit filters definitely won't, since this involves just changing a few numbers within tables. The articles affected right now are the four listed, but this really does need broad approval since he'll just pop up in another somewhat similar article. I'm stepping away from all this for 24 hours since this is getting a tad frustrating. I don't see any of the editors opposing 30/500 volunteering to watchlist the 100+ pages I have on my watchlist to combat this sneaky vandalism (both pages the puppeteer had edited and pages I think he's likely to edit in the future). ~ Rob Talk 21:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
On 22 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Galdieria sulphuraria, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the red alga Galdieria sulphuraria grows well at pH between 0–4 and temperatures up to 56°C—among the most extreme environments known for a eukaryote? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Galdieria sulphuraria. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Galdieria sulphuraria), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I realise coming here without talking about an actual article may be foolhardy, but can I interest you (and your talk page stalkers) in User:Ritchie333/Userbox Suede? Having had to close or hat too many discussions over the last 24 hours, it does come to mind for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
... for " Wikipedia:If you're that pissed off, put down the keyboard and go outside. (Why is that still a red link?)" - next time, please vote on different topics with a new time stamp, then you'll get just a thank-you-click ;) - Today: most welcome feast of joy, pictured. I was cited to ANI, - what do you think? I told our friend who outed himself as male ("Because if I were female, I might've grown some resistance to this bullshit.") that being blocked may be better. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Blocks are a powerful extinguisher and their long-term benefits are proven. Wikipedia's blocking culture has not contributed towards the deterioration of discourse on the site. Izkala ( talk) 12:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Missing cat dance: Today's precious went to a user whose user page is all about a cat, infobox included, - cheered me up a bit, a year after Dreadstar appeared on the German Main page. So did a dialogue here, after "Avoid the infobox topic, for your health" -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
go outside |
---|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Floridean starch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cryptophyte. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Floridean starch at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk) 00:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
On 3 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Floridean starch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that most red algae store energy from the sun as Floridean starch? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Floridean starch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Floridean starch), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw you deleted Template:Official websites after a TfD. It seems one subpage, Template:Official websites/single, accidentally got left behind. Would you mind G8ing it? Thanks. – void xor 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
10 July |
It took only 300 years to restore her good name. The image is not free, - any kitten that could go with the message? (The statue image is not free. It would be if in Germany.) - She didn't appeal. I noticed with pleasure that the arbcom issued two messages yesterday restoring the names of editors, and still do believe that arbcom might look "self-critically" at previous rulings from time to time even if the people don't appeal. (Background: when the witch article TFA was removed from the Main page on Halloween 2010, I met the dark side of Wikipedia for the first time, after a year of merry innocence.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
OR, you've been clueful about RfA debates for many years. I don't really know where to turn; I'll just throw some things out, and maybe you can help me add them up. Here, we're down to 540 active admins. We were losing around 80 per year like clockwork until last year, when there was a pause, but now we've lost 43 in half a year again (I always measure from Jan 1). My hypothesis is that the pause last year had something to do with less-active admins realizing there was a problem and stepping up to do work that needed doing; but of course, that labor pool is a limited resource (and getting smaller), especially in a volunteer organization like Wikipedia. WP:RFA promotions are at a record low. In the most recent RfA, the main objection seemed to be lack of experience; most voters didn't want to quantify that as a specific number of years, but I think it's a fair reading that the opposes were looking for something like 2 years of experience, at least in this case. Recent discussions at WP:VPR#5th RfA reform got nowhere. And then there's this RfC, which no one has closed yet ... and I can see why. In the RfC, parallels are being drawn to WP:RM, WP:TFD and WP:CFD, where non-admins have in recent years been allowed to close certain discussions, and there doesn't seem to be any substantive argument against the recent practice. This RfC attempts to extend similar rights to non-admins at WP:RfD, but the voters are sharply divided, and many would consider this a "no consensus" result. I'm at a loss what to do here. It's easy to see what would happen if we followed the implied advice of some of the opposers: if we pushed some of the more avid and competent non-admin regulars at RfD over to RfA before they had their two years of experience, or whatever is needed these days, the experience would be likely to sour them. I don't know why the numbers of active admins continue to decline, but I imagine that if it were possible for them to get more help of various kinds from non-admins, they might feel less besieged (and perhaps be less likely to leave). These days, I spend most of my time on copyediting software, which I hope will be helpful for Wikipedians some day, but if I weren't doing that, I would certainly be spending more time on the admin problem, and I feel somewhat guilty that I'm not. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Deleting the last part ... I don't think it would pass. I really don't know what to do. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gene Brown (professor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me. I'm now a member of the Personal acquaintances project. Those who have this template shouldn't be investigated for sockpuppetry. For security reasons, I also no longer make edits at a public computer. Fixer88 ( talk) 17:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Gene Brown (professor) at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
97198 (
talk) 10:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Opabinia regalis. You deleted Template:American Experience episodes on 01:28, 20 June 2016. How do I restore it? Thanks. Mitchumch ( talk) 19:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
16 July 2016 |
---|
... on a centenary of a performance, - and thank you for being around in a refreshing inspiring way! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's now at ARCA. My motion would be: for the rest of the year, the word infobox is taboo, - people edit those things like images and tables, nice add-ons to articles, in good faith and on 1RR. (Did you know that in the original case, which was my first so I didn't know what arbs mean by motion, I placed an infobox for Verdi in that section, which is now in the article ;) - My little memorial piece for the young man who died too soon is on the Main page, A Requiem in Our Time. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
On 8 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gene Brown (professor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Gene Brown taught the same biochemistry course for 50 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gene Brown (professor). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Gene Brown (professor)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 19:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisa Steiner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Development. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your excellent work as an arbitrator. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC) |
Whenever I peek at the arbitration pages, I am consistently impressed by the soundness of your analysis and the thoughtfulness of your comments. Your comments often parallel what I would have written in the same spot if I were still on the Committee, although that is not my basis for thinking you are doing a fine job. As for brevity, remember Einstein's admonition that "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler than that." Most importantly, I hope you are finding the work more rewarding than you sometimes let on on this page. Best regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
life is too short |
---|
Actually when I grow up, I want to be Opabinia. Whenever I start to write something, she manages to beat me to it, having written pretty much what I wanted to say, but much better than I would have written it. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 03:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I saw your recent statement on my WP:ARC case. I have pointed out some relevant things in my section of the thread. [1] I thought I'd draw your attention to it. If this is not necessary, or if this is a breach of protocol, please let me know. Cute kitten, by the way. :) Debresser ( talk) 13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
And again. [2] Debresser ( talk) 00:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Debresser}}
, but I don't have my sound on so didn't hear that bell. There is also nothing in the notification area about it.
Debresser (
talk) 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence#Please enforce the word limits in the interest of fairness -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment you are expressing, but would like to caution that I feel there is a murky line between slowing something down and dragging something out. I fear it is difficult to judge in this situation whether the benefit of slowing down to relax and reorganize will outweigh the harm of stretching out an already lengthy and stressful situation. I am glad though either way to see someone looking out for another's interest. M. A. Bruhn ( talk) 02:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Although the point is probably moot due to this case going to be accepted, I was wondering if you are aware of any alternatives to a full-blown Arbcom case other than letting this die down on its own. I would support such an alternative, but feel letting it die down is not appropriate. I will wait for the arbcom discussions to begin my arguments, but a brief description of what I will argue and the reason why I went from wanting this to die down to seeing it addressed is due increased discouragement that an editor can experience in a negative admin/non-admin encounter, and how public misbehavior by an admin can sanction such behavior and lead to a chilling effect on its reporting. I will present evidence along these lines where a user with a clean block log and years of activity expresses such discouragement and retires several months later, and I will ask how a user could possibly feel comfortable bringing up concerns of harassment or personal attacks to ANI after witnessing an admin brought to ANI on charges of harassment justify their usage of the terms "mentally challenged" and "liar" and justify bringing back 2-year-old disputes out of nowhere, and be admonished by no one other than a single non-admin user who is instead admonished by others who link them to an essay telling them that it's easier to demand an apology than to give one, and who state that the admin had "done did it again, :-)" and ask "let's everyone just drop it". Before I saw this, and more, I had thanked a user at ANI requesting to let the drama there die down, but after seeing issues come up time and again to be let to die down I decided that I wanted this to be addressed in some capacity, although I did not expect a month-long Arbcom case. If you know of any other alternatives to a full-blown Arbcom case then I would be interested in hearing them. By the way if this is inappropriate to bring up here then feel free to delete my post and I will just wait for the Arbcom case to begin. M. A. Bruhn ( talk) 02:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the revision deletion on my user talk while I was offline. It seems very obvious that this is a socking IP of Foleo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), given the context of that section and the past usage of socking IPs. The timing of the edits also came shortly after I protected Criticism of the Quran, an article where he's previously edit warred and where another socking proxy IP 137.74.154.148 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has recently popped up. Mind taking a look at this and determining whether there's enough to indefinitely block Foleo on the behavioral evidence? He's about to come off a block for edit warring and socking which I placed. Given my past administrative interactions with him and now his harassment of me, it seems like this is a proper time to hand this off to another uninvolved admin rather than press on. ~ Rob13 Talk 13:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
On 18 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Buchanan (biologist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology biochemist Jack Buchanan published his work on purine biosynthesis in a series of more than 20 papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Buchanan (biologist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, John Buchanan (biologist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Atsme 📞 📧 21:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
On 22 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agnoprotein, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that agnoprotein (pictured) is found in two polyomaviruses that can cause human disease, JC virus and BK virus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agnoprotein. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Agnoprotein), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Purnell W. Choppin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnes Hospital. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
On 17 August, you blocked 72.198.49.108 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a week for evading a block. Which block was he evading? The IP is problematic today—and may also have been editing from other IPs—and I'm trying to establish a history to see if a longer block is justified. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Opabinia regalis. In regard to your recent edit where you said it was not your intention to imply my request was in anything but good faith, I wish to say: I did not mean to ever imply that you had. I am sorry for not being clear enough on this point; you have been wonderful in all I have seen. Best regards.-- John Cline ( talk) 02:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I saw your ping while I was at the circus with my kids, sorry for not responding to you sooner. I'm certain that Arbcom are no idiots, and therefore I'm certain I'm completely and utterly confused as to why a case can be raised in such a biased manner. Banedon pinged at least 16 editors with whom I may have had any kind of conflict, and George Ho jumped onboard, pinging another eight or so. So to enter any kind of comment this case is to invite further lynching from around 20 or so editors, all of whom have more time and inclination to see the back of me than I do to attempt to defend any position I may or may not have. My experiences with Arbcom have been generally very negative, not necessarily the outcomes but the manner in which the trials are conducted and the obvious invested interest of some (just some) of the sitting members. I am staggered that canvassing on such a level has gone without any kind of sanction, and I am disappointed (but not surprised) that claims of sockpuppetry and failure to collaborate have gone without counter question. That I am forced, daily, to try to maintain (almost single-handedly it feels) the integrity of the main page from numerous slack-minded and slack-handed editors inevitably ends in conflict and me being the bad guy. I've never abused my admin position. I've only ever thought of the readers. But I won't be dragged further into this debacle other than to take on the corollary actions of seeking sanctions against those who falsely accuse me of sockpupptery or compare me to Donald Trump. The latter is the most demeaning thing I have ever seen and I am sickened to my core. Good luck to you and the rest of the Arbcom, I think I see how this pans out, and I don't think it net gains Wikipedia, but when did that ever count in such cases? My best, The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
You're like the only sensible, sane voice around here these days. Glad you're back and sticking around. - NQ (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
Hi there, if you've got the time, I'd love to hear what you alluded to at the NPP RfC in terms of alternative means of improving management of the incoming articles. I'm eager for the NPP situation to be addressed (I've def gotten bitten by people with a range of experience) and sooner rather than later given quantity of new contributors who can be affected by even one bad patroler, but if a better remedy can be readily identified, I know I'd be interested to hear it! Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I saw a big chunk of text and I just had to read it and respond.- ha! See, most people say "I saw a big chunk of text so I didn't read it..." ;)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Affinity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Opabinia regalis. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You mentioned a template that would ping all the ArbCom. If you're serious about that, I could whip something up à la {{ @MILHIST}}. Miss seeing you at TFD! Primefac ( talk) 23:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Relist bias when you have a chance and providing your thoughts? With AfD showing backlogs recently, I think it might be a helpful reminder that kicking discussions down the road usually isn't helpful. I'd like a set of eyes on it before I start "putting it out there" (and potentially embarrassing myself with any typos, etc). Cheers! ~ Rob13 Talk 22:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Your talk without a kitten? No. Wikipedia must be much better now that a page listing a few operas and bios was deleted, - expect a drastic decline in infobox debates now that 21 articles such as Max Reger no longer invite to be "targeted". (And see what happens when I try to avoid the topic.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi OR, I note your post here and thought a brief reply here might be more appropriate as the MH case is going to close any second. Sadly, I agree with you that the key decision has been made, but I disagree that it was to not desysop MH. That decision was (I would guess) fairly easy for arbitrators to reach once the quality of evidence was clear. For me, the key decision was that sanctioning non-parties with no notification is permissable. The TRM case is pretty obviously wandering in that same direction. I recognise you have characterised this issue as a "rough edge" (unless I am misunderstanding you) but it's actually a core issue of fairness and principle and it isn't going away. EdChem ( talk) 13:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)