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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
A couple of years ago, I was granted the IP block exemption right to allow me to continue to edit, as another user on the network had been blocked and I had been caught in the autoblock. However, circumstances have now changed, so could you CheckUser me to see if I still require the flag and if not, remove it as per Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Thank you very much. -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
A couple of years ago, I was granted the IP block exemption right to allow me to continue to edit, as another user on the network had been blocked and I had been caught in the autoblock. However, circumstances have now changed, so could you CheckUser me to see if I still require the flag and if not, remove it as per Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Thank you very much. -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
When you find the time, please shoot me an email. — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 01:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
May user talk:dannyboy1209 be unblocked to prevent the owner from socking please? That way, socking will not be required anymore. Please listen. 92.0.102.253 ( talk) 16:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Worm, I have answered the last two questions that you gave at me. But can you please explain me the first two unanswered questions that you had given me in a bit more detail and simple language, as I need to understand the nature of the questions itself. And also, can you move me to your current adoptees list as well as I will be continuing my adoption and will definitely finish it soon when the time comes. Regards. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Dave and staplers, i know you're not a fan of scrolly tables, but doesn't my second example here look an improvement? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 11:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you check my most recent post in the discussion I'm having at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Fair use from a speech. I received an email with some information/links about So God Made a Farmer that news organizations haven't picked up on. Ryan Vesey 14:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I reverted once, blissfully unaware of the hoo-haa between numerous other editors, seeing as I have barely looked at the RFA since my initial comment a few days ago. I am not edit-warring and your threats of a block are an extreme over-reaction. Giant Snowman 15:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
— cyberpower ChatOffline 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
Teahouse Host Badge | |
Awarded to hosts at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like
Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. |
Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dave. Just checking in to see how you're doing and also to offer my belated congratulations on your WP:ACE2012 run. It was an especially difficult election. You did very well, being in the top 3 and I was glad to see you had changed your mind from earlier in the year. The community has a lot of respect for you. This is because you are calm, thoughtful, and have a history of wise decisions. These are all qualities that make a good Arbitrator. I have noticed that you have been somewhat reserved in commenting on ArbCom matters and I figured you have been quietly contemplating and giving each matter its due consideration. But it also occurred to me that it could be something else and that you may have felt pushed in to running, and I hope that's not the case. I know I wasn't the only one to suggest you run. Being an Arbitrator is a dirty and thankless job. You get the most difficult problems and the most upset people and you have to come up with a solution that is both good for the project and good for the community. And the only feedback you get is from people who are upset at the committee's decisions. So I just wanted to provide some positive feedback and say that I'm thankful for the support you've given to the community. I also wanted to check in to see how you are doing and hope that you are well. Kind regards. 64.40.54.47 ( talk) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I feel honoured that my work is clearly being replicated/copied here as it saves me having to hunt down the sources later =D. I was right when i suspected earlier that my work was helping the Resident Evil wiki, and that's my proof. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm That Turned, we're looking to finalise numbers and I just wanted to confirm that you're still interested in attending the event on 23-24th February? Thanks, Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm That Turned, the details of the venue are now on the UK wiki. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 13:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 15:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't know if you are aware of the diary clash between a strategy workshop that WMUK want to hold and the 17th Manchester meetup? Feel free to comment at Meta:Talk:Meetup/Manchester/17#Diary clash or wmuk:Talk:Looking at the next five years – a day workshop on the future of Wikimedia UK#Diary clash.
Yaris678 ( talk) 10:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the proofread fix but Pod tried exactly the same thing and for him made the image itself disappear! I know he's a little stupid, but he's not that stupid. I guess it only works when arbs do it? Hardly fair! And Worm, could you please take a look at Giano's query on my page? When I click on the two redlinked images, I merely get directed to the Upload Wizard, it's ridiculous. I mean, I am after all an admin (I did it myself, not Pod), so I thought I'd be able to see what has happened to them, but no. :-( Bishonen | talk 15:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
Hey Dave,
Multiple IPs have continuously removed the See Also section from the Death of Jill Meagher article, citing that, " The correlation of this article to others regarding "Murder", may be in breach of the suppression order issued by the Victorian court. Please cease referring to "Murder". The family does not want the defendant to "walk" due to these [assertions]", and a section on the article's talk page here.
The article's in question relate to the subject matter, in my opinion, and also, would this article be subject to the suppression order handled by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court? — MelbourneStar☆ talk 02:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Did you know that if you type "Commons:" into the search bar you'll go to commons, or "Meta:" "Wikibooks:" "Wiktionary:" etc.? If you type "wiki:" you go to http://c2.com/cgi/wiki Ryan Vesey 05:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget to give User:Julia W her barnstar! -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I put this notice at Dl2000 talkpage after he edited an article which was just rewriting of order of dates, which as you know is not welcomed in Wikipedia. Can you please check if I wrote everything nice? I think I did it the way it should be...-- Mishae ( talk) 04:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
So I decided to check his contributions and it turned out that he had done that repitedly before: Buzzcocks, Tommy Robinson (English Defence League), and Soundwave (Australian music festival), all of which were after he edited mine. Yes, both of them have use dmy template, but isn't it considered to be destructive to go after every user and just switch the date around? In fact, don't you think it would consider to be harrasing? Not to mention he didn't respond to my notice, and therefore probably ignored it. Should I warn him again?-- Mishae ( talk) 03:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Update: I just received back from him, so I put another reply. I hope I didn't exagerate?
I do have a question though: Maybe I should put that template for a discussion? You see, its pointless for a bot-generated article to carry it! Sure, bot articles are partly created by humans, but bots don't have preferences.:)-- Mishae ( talk) 04:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
On 26 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Life story work, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that life story work can be beneficial to adults with dementia? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.
Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.
1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:
Metric | Control group | Teahouse group | Contrast |
---|---|---|---|
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) | 5.02 weeks | 8.57 weeks | 1.7x retention |
Average number of articles edited | 58.7 articles | 116.9 edits | 2.0x articles edited |
Average talk page edits | 36.5 edits | 85.6 edits | 2.4x talk page edits |
Average article space edits | 129.6 edits | 360.4 edits | 2.8x article edits |
Average total edits (all namespaces) | 182.1 edits | 532.4 edits | 2.9x total edits |
Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper
Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.
Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
Hi Dave, I've uploaded (via Doug) the disambiguation training material that we developed on the TtT course. If you want it, it's here: [1]. Cheers, Bazonka ( talk) 21:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
Teahouse First Birthday Badge | |
Awarded to everyone who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thanks for the piece on microgrants - I hope it will inspire others. My in-laws lived just by the Doom Bar fro over twenty years and my kids kept digging at it to make sandcastles! I love the beer too! Jon Davies (WMUK) ( talk) 11:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC) |
Don't forget the 'merkin Dave. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your gracious withdrawal. ``` Buster Seven Talk 16:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You know, if you want there to be a mutual interaction ban proposed then you can just take the wording for Sarek's interaction ban and substitute "Orlady" for Sarek's name.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just looking over my RfA from last summer, and I decided to follow a link posted by Demiurge1000 to your adoption lessons for the sake of getting a better understanding of copyright policy. I went ahead, reviewed Lesson 3, and decided to test myself to see the correct answers (i.e. the ones by the adoptee in conjunction with whatever corrections you've applied, if any). My understanding is that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and content submitted to Wikipedia is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
My two questions are as follows:
Thanks in advance. Kurtis (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize first of all for transcluding it, but you are right with the "edgy" thing with his RFA. Some of the old guard would cringe on this delay and wouldn't look good on the nominee at all. He needs to make a decision fast, as the further it gets delayed, the more likely issues will be bought up knowing from experience from previous people RFAs. Also on a side note, there is a list of editors I'm looking to nominate for RFA myself, and I want to discuss them with you though email or private IRC chat. I agree RFA needs to be more active, and while the "admin score" thing is extremely flawed from an experienced user perspective, I'm seeing some "diamonds in the rough" candidates as well that should be nominated. Secret account 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dave, How are you! I am not very familiar with this sort of communication, so please forgive me. I am writing regarding concerns for an addition in Wikipedia regarding 'Juvederm', a product for medical use. There was a recent edit on the 26th of September 2012 - it stated that - 'Due to the hydrophilic nature of Juvederm it is generally not recommended for use under the eyes directly sub-orbital. Many patients have reported "bags" under the eyes which is in effect non-pitting edema due to water retention. Excessive amounts of Juvederm may also cause undesirable results. Hyaluronidase may be injected to reduce the amount of injected Juvederm to a desirable level.' Please note that there has been no scientific medical evidence for this. As a practitioner who uses the product, and one who also works with Allergan who manufactures the product, I have felt it necessary to make the proper corrections, while citing scientific evidence to support the correction. The problem goes even deeper - this entry was made a few days before a patient quoted Wikipedia as a source for bringing a lawsuit against a respected physician. We believe that this entry was deliberate and meant to be misleading. Can you please inform me as to the procedure for requesting the IP address using 'checkuser'? I am not sure whether I should provide the username in this public forum, or whether it should be done via private email. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmeticspecialist ( talk • contribs)
While it was tempered with an iff, do you sincerely believe that actions taken by Doncram are worth an indefinite ban rather than an indefinite block? This is an issue that Arbs have tended not to consider, and some don't appear to understand, but I hope that they will start now. Ryan Vesey 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to make a personal comment to you about your reply but I also do not want to run afoul of fraternization with an Arb during a case where I've commented. Do you have any concerns with me leaving a comment on your talk page?--v/r - T P 14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If you check user me, and it is very common for curious Wikipedians to do so even though it is wrong, you will see that I used to be a frequent editor several years ago. Some of my edits were from this computer.
Wikipedia is a very hostile environment. After being attacked, the natural reaction is to leave, vandalize, or read but stop editing. I have done the latter. I hope that you will consider the following ideas.
1. It should be deemed a personal attack and a reason to ban an editor if they, lacking the ability to discuss things in a civil and convincing manner, then start to accuse another person of being a sock. This type of behavior is highly effective, showing how juvenile Wikipedia is.
Wikipedia would be far more effective if editors were not allowed to continue to edit if they cannot calmly and rationally discuss issues in the talk pages. This is a far better way to improve an article than to falsely accuse someone of being a sock.
2. Everyone should disclose conflicts of interests. There are plenty. Wikipedia is quick to block someone if their name is a corporate name but allows POV pushers all the time. The most common POV pusher is in biographies of politicians. Some will always push for inclusion of favorable material and exclusion of unfavorable material. They will use excuses such as "undue weight" or "trivia" or will call the other person a sock.
It should be automatically assumed that one is a POV pusher if all their edits are one sided or if they always support a partisan viewpoint in the talk pages. Wikipedia should be neutral.
One way to do it would be for people to disclose possible conflicts on their user page and update them as they edit articles. For example, one could disclose that they are American. Later, if they write about politics, they could disclose that they are a registered party member or a government employee. If they don't want to disclose this, they can stick with botany and animal articles. In academia, people do make disclosures when they give lectures.
3. The last point is not as critical. Wikipedia should try its utmost not to be hypocritical. There have been several cases of unfavorable information about Wikipedia removed from articles and favorable information included. Examples include reporting when entities' own articles have been edited by the entity and then reported in the news. This helps Wikipedia and is included several times. Yet when Wikipedia has egg on its face, like false deaths, even if reported in a news article, is always removed from the article by other editors acting as censors.
Finally, I disclose that I have started an account because I have not edited for so long and do not have my password or even my exact name. It's been years since I edited. VDAWP ( talk) 04:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dave. Now that the Copyright is done and dusted what's up next to do? – Blue☆Stars 83 14:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I blame karma but i got a cold around the time i posted that message and had Stevie looking after me for 3 days. I'm back though ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 10:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
re: this Actually I do have some thoughts on that myself. I have some work to do today, but could throw something together this evening if you're interested. I know you're busy, so I won't pester - just an offer. — Ched : ? 13:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
we found that you needed a lay for administration . So that's why so many editors go for Rfa! NE Ent 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [2]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions? Giano 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do elaborate. I must be misunderstanding something there.— cyberpower ChatOnline 00:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello WormTT, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Dave, Hope you are well. Parents have favorite children, but they don't admit it for obvious reasons. I have lived by that philosophy here at Wikipedia... until now. You are my favorite. You are the number one Wikipedian. You care deeply about the project and I am very thankful you are here supporting Wikipedia. You're doing a good job and I appreciate you efforts. I just thought you could use some support during these trying times. If I can make your wiki-life even the slightest bit more enjoyable, then I am more than happy to do so. Kind regards. 64.40.54.27 ( talk) 13:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitrator's Barnstar | |
I seem to be in the minority, but I still have faith in the ArbCom, and that is in no small part due to you being on it. Thank you for what you have submitted yourself to, and I hope, for the sake of you and for the sake of the encyclopedia as a whole, that things calm down and everyone can get back to building content. Thank you for your work. A grateful Go Phightins ! 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
No problem. Yep, I did notice that it's (wiki discussion) been rather .. ummm .. active(?) lately. I had also dropped the link on Risker's page btw. Anyway - I'll leave it alone, and my door is always open. — Ched : ? 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You suggested you wanted to address these questions here [4] Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
So what we need to do is work out a way to minimise the annoyed people. The decisions still have to be made and Arbcom shouldn't be shying away from making them, but I've found that people can accept decisions if they understand the reasons for those decisions and are given time to prepare themselves. In other words, communication is key. It allows people to collect their thoughts and draw their own conclusions - they shouldn't be shocked by any decisions. That's where the chasm lies, the committee doesn't appear to respect the community enough which leads to the community not trusting the committee.
The worst part is that the majority of what the committee does, it does well. I wouldn't have believed how well myself until I got a chance to look behind the curtain. Discussion is robust, privacy is respected and decisions are made. Arbcom has to deal with so much, primarily because no one else will and these things need to be handled. The community often doesn't see what the committee does, things like acting as a place where you can state if your family member has started editing or child protection requests or unban requests, but they're handled. No mess, no fuss. It's where the committee doesn't get it right and the community can't understand why that we get problems.
The committee does what it needs to do, which does mean that it's remit has extended beyond the hypothetical "sorting intractable disputes" which people think of when they think of "arbitration". Is that what it is supposed to do? Yes, I think so, these are tasks that need to be done. Does the community understand that? As a whole, yes, I believe it does. There are vocal people who'd want it torn down, but in general I think that the community is happy that it does what needs to be done.
Policy is more difficult, I don't believe policy is black and white on all situations and Arbcom deals with the "edge-cases". If it was clear, Arbcom wouldn't be needed. It doesn't help that one of the founding rules is to ignore the others if it improves the encyclopedia. So yes, I think that the committee understands policy and is willing to think around policy to determine the spirit of the policy and how that would apply. The community shouldn't be getting bogged down in sorting every minute detail of every possible scenario, I think that it has articulated policy correctly.
Finally, the fact that there is a decision from the committee is often enough for the community to move forwards. Whether that decision is right or wrong is not as important as the fact that a decision has been made. Every decision that arbcom makes is destined to be the "wrong" one for someone, so there will generally be protestations, it's just a fact of life. I hope that's covered everything, but feel free to discuss further! WormTT( talk) 12:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Ye 'ole Broken Tuchus ref Barnstar | ||
For your extended efforts, and breaking yon Gluteus maximus (your backside, behind, butt, rear-end - OK "Busting Ass") to maintain the drama levels of Wikipedia, Ched would like to award you (da Worm) the Broken Tuchus Barnstar. |
Heyas Worm, are you available to run a CU for me? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
if only huh? :) — Ched : ? 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi... I have been watching ArbCom for years, and go through periods of editing / commenting. I wanted to tell you that I have noticed some of your recent posts / actions and that I have been impressed. I was glad to see when you noticed the prior actions of Kevin in the BLP deletions and saw that maybe that ArbCom had encouraged an unhelpful degree of BOLD-action (though I also felt the "emergency" desysop was a bad decision). You have been offering clearer and more forthright comments than are typical from Arbitrators (excluding NYB) and I think that is a positive development. I've seen you requesting comments on ArbCom, which is also encouraging to see. ArbCom have certainly made a huge mess recently but I wanted to say that you have earned at least one editor's respect for trying to handle the situations well. Regards, EdChem ( talk) 00:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here are a few thoughts on current messes (I'll sign each so you can respond to each point if you wish):
But that's not what you're asking. You are asking whether a CU was justified at the time. The checkuser was based on the fact that the policy had been violated (both accounts had edited the project space) and allegations were credible - it was also stated that the intention was to exonerate Malleus, as few of us believed Malleus was the sort to use sockpuppets. This was sufficient to call the actions justifiable. I personally felt that the justification was not sufficient, as did a number of my collegues, but the checkuser had been made before I was even aware of the thread. One arbitrator cross posted his opinion that a checkuser was not justified at the same time the result was given. This is an example of the reactionary nature of the committee, wanting to right wrongs quickly. It is something that we've discussed at length since and I have already seen improvement in the committee when a similar case came up recently.
Retroactively, it was clear that if they were the same person, they had violated many inappropriate uses of alternate accounts and I think that a checkuser would have been justified after a little more investigation. Topics and style of editing was similar. George carried on editing whilst Malleus was blocked 1, George edited project space (Village pump and RfA 2), the pair appeared to tag-team edit war (which is dubious, but both did edit the same article) 3 and even arguably "Good Hand, Bad Hand" editing. There are a number of instances where mention was made by George of Malleus or vice versa which appeared to a certain reading to be evading scrutiny. When looked at these would have justified an investigation, and since SPI would not have touched it due to the subject, Arbcom was the right place to do it.
Of course, if these were different people, the vast majority of these technical violations fell down. The accounts did not particularly attempt to influence consensus, so under a "spirit" reading of policy rather than a "letter" reading, there was less of a problem. We start having to worry about shared accounts and meatpuppetry, but they're different problems. WormTT( talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi WTT.
Captain Occam is a site-banned editor who has been involved in repeated arbcom campaigns against me on wikipedia. When topic-banned he edited through his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, who inherited his topic ban. He then brought in at least two other off-wiki friends to help him bypass his topic ban. Eventually he stopped adding content and just engaged in arbcom proceedings firstly against me and then against others (MastCell, Orangemarlin). When Orangemarlin was recovering from major surgery and not editing wikipedia, Captain Occam pressed for him to be site-banned (following the Abortion case). Subsequently Risker blocked both of them. Because of issues connected with proxy-editing, Captain Occam and his girlfriend were site-banned in May 2012. Subsequently the two editors who had edited on their behalf attempted to continue arbcom proceedings against me. One of them is now indefinitely banned and the other, outside arbcom pages, had effectively stopped editing wikipedia.
Captain Occam is now using wikipediocracy as a base for continuing his campaign against me. That is all he seems to do there. In every thread he enters, his posts seem geared to some form of attack on me. Captain Occam has not been truthful in his submissions on wikipedia, so when he repeats himself off-wikipedia, the statements are even more questionable. Please do not allow you yourself to be trolled by him. If you want information about him, ask Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Carcharoth or Risker. I am sorry this has happened, but that is one of the perils of wikipediocracy. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 10:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm. Your comment there seems to have resulted in the page being fully protected, which is not called for by any policy. There actually are many needs to post to the talk page. We have bots and editorial processes where Cla68 would receive routine notices about article or image business. Even if Cla68 is blocked, his friends watch that page and could be fixing things. Could you have a look, and try to rectify this? I had proposed a notice limiting discussion to content matters, and directing any discussion of the block to a suitable venue, with a warning that misplaced comments could be removed. Jehochman Talk 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that's enough here, you may of course email me. WormTT( talk) 12:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi Worm That Turned, Do you believe that every Wikipedian (I do not mean vandals, pedophiles or criminals) should have the right to defend/explain his actions during the Arbitration Committee and/or the Wikipedia community discussions regarding himself, if that defense/explanations involves no outing, no secret information and no harm to the project ? If your answer to my question is "no", could you please provide some examples of the exceptions as you see them. Thanks. 71.198.215.196 ( talk) 05:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
|
A discussion which relates to actions or comments made by you can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Peter Damian socks. Fram ( talk) 15:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We have a problem with user /info/en/?search=User:Ronz and /info/en/?search=User:Dougweller
They are stopping honest debate at /info/en/?search=Talk:Bosnian_pyramids
My recent addition on the TALK page was deleted. There was no discussion - just deleted. I have a copy for proof. Their violation of wikipedia rules jeopardises everything you and all Honest wikipedia editors DO.
What can we do to stop their bad behaviour? Perhaps this may be their last chance.
Thank you for your work. Your honesty is your saviour. Aaron Sanders (edits as Sovereign SoEvReigns and GBCIR and SoPhi'A) 82.127.43.154 ( talk) 09:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Sovereign SoEvReigns
Hello. I suggest you have glance of this edit history page. Till yesterday the article was nearly wholly in Tamil on en:wp. I move it to the user's sandbox with a note on his talk page to this effect.
This user then used Twinkle to move the page again to the article section.
Since the article had the subject's crucial contact details such as the phone number, another used tagged it for speedy deletion. A hitherto unknown IP removed the speedy-tag. But I guess that once speedy tagging is done, a decision to delete or keep the article should be by the admin rather than an arbitrary decision. Hence I restored the speedy tag with a note that it's upto admins to decide on the article.
I guess an admin removed the speedy and the article is accepted as a stub.
BUT WHAT SURPRISES ME IS THAT MANY EDITS ARE HIDDEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE ARTICLE INCLUDING MINE, THE ARTICLE-CREATOR'S AND OTHER USERS'. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR SUCH A MOVE AND HENCE REQUEST YOU TO UNHIDE THE HIDDEN EDITS WHICH ARE 30-40 EDITS. AN URGENT ACTION IS REQUESTED. Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 17:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC).
Thank you for the clarification. Btw, my only concern was the untraceability of the edits in the history - and to this was the first time on en:wp. I was never concerned with the pictures. Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC).
Considering the reasons for Cla68's recent block, could you take a look at this post on Jimbo's talk page, as well as the fact that he restored it after someone removed it? The post links to various articles on Wikipediocracy that reveal the personal details of Wikipedia editors. Just wondering if you find this to be a blockable event, and if not, what the difference is between this event and Cla68's event. I would have blocked him already, but there is probably a reasonable argument that I'm too involved. Thanks. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that these kinds of allegations against another editor, especially one who is identified on-wiki, is a serious problem and it is prohibited by the relevant policy. You guys should stop mentioning this individual by name.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, we have an editor who cannot be named, who links his user page to his Facebook page, where he states "Information about me that is highly controversial (relates to child pornography): http://www.webcitation.org/[redacted]". In said link he tells a story about being arrested for "having made illegal pornography available to minors", and talks about setting up an FTP server for "...nude photos of prepubescent boys (aroused or not), photos showing such young boys engaged sexually with each other, or pictures of adult men having sex with these young boys...". Am I missing something? He's not ecactly hiding it, theres a link right there on his user page. Kevin ( talk) 02:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dave. I want to show the giant table on C3 Picasso as a {{Brick chart}} to simplify it. But if i'm going to do that then i could remove half of it by removing either the fuel economy or CO2 figures. Neither sways me one way or the other so i'm here for your opinion on what to delete if anything. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about what someone at the help desk said and i've stripped out the mpg figures too. They're difficult to cite, easily confusing and disputable in some instances, and there's the fact that i can simplify the article by removing them. Now the table just says which engines are available to each model. My question now is do i need to cite them as available at all? Or should i just do it if anything is later disputed? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Nudge =P ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 08:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, this user posted on Jimbo's talk page; can you take a look at their user page and see if some oversighting needs to be done due to their age -- specifically the external links to family websights. Once reviewed, I guess remove this thread from your talk page, too, for privacy's sake. Rgrds. -- 64.85.214.134 ( talk) 14:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for getting your adoption pages CSD tagged - it was sort of entirely my fault; I'd transcluded the test to a new user subpage rather than substituting it, so he couldn't add his answers there. Yunshui 雲 水 13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
O.K. So this time I am in a conflict with user Rkitko, who realised that I was editing taxoboxes again and combining them with my good faith edits, and Ryan told me I am allowed to do it. Now user Rkitko is angry at me and gives the last warning, which means I either wont edit another article and be bored to tears, or I will edit it my way, he will revert my good faith edits, and I will get blocked! Question, is it modest for a user to ask an admin to block him and if so, should I remove, "this user is block free" template from my user page? Also, can you view my discussion here?-- Mishae ( talk) 14:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi -- I notice you've been active in nominating at RfA over the past year, and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject for Nominators, which aims to support editors interested in nominating there. We'd be glad of your expertise in getting this new project off the ground. Apologies for the talk-page spamming if you've already seen this message a dozen times. Regards, Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dave/staplers! How would i give attribution for using vehicle images from Wikimedia Commons which have been modified to remove the badge? Do i just add that the images are sourced from the Wikimedia Commons on the Terms and Conditions of the site with a brief wording? Or does this have to be done some other way? I asked a similar question at the help desk before but didn't get a useful reply. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's a plate full of cookies to share! | |
Hi Worm That Turned/Archive 24, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{ subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:18, 10 April 2013 (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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
A couple of years ago, I was granted the IP block exemption right to allow me to continue to edit, as another user on the network had been blocked and I had been caught in the autoblock. However, circumstances have now changed, so could you CheckUser me to see if I still require the flag and if not, remove it as per Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Thank you very much. -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
A couple of years ago, I was granted the IP block exemption right to allow me to continue to edit, as another user on the network had been blocked and I had been caught in the autoblock. However, circumstances have now changed, so could you CheckUser me to see if I still require the flag and if not, remove it as per Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Thank you very much. -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
When you find the time, please shoot me an email. — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 01:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
May user talk:dannyboy1209 be unblocked to prevent the owner from socking please? That way, socking will not be required anymore. Please listen. 92.0.102.253 ( talk) 16:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Worm, I have answered the last two questions that you gave at me. But can you please explain me the first two unanswered questions that you had given me in a bit more detail and simple language, as I need to understand the nature of the questions itself. And also, can you move me to your current adoptees list as well as I will be continuing my adoption and will definitely finish it soon when the time comes. Regards. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Dave and staplers, i know you're not a fan of scrolly tables, but doesn't my second example here look an improvement? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 11:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you check my most recent post in the discussion I'm having at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Fair use from a speech. I received an email with some information/links about So God Made a Farmer that news organizations haven't picked up on. Ryan Vesey 14:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I reverted once, blissfully unaware of the hoo-haa between numerous other editors, seeing as I have barely looked at the RFA since my initial comment a few days ago. I am not edit-warring and your threats of a block are an extreme over-reaction. Giant Snowman 15:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
— cyberpower ChatOffline 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
Teahouse Host Badge | |
Awarded to hosts at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like
Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. |
Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dave. Just checking in to see how you're doing and also to offer my belated congratulations on your WP:ACE2012 run. It was an especially difficult election. You did very well, being in the top 3 and I was glad to see you had changed your mind from earlier in the year. The community has a lot of respect for you. This is because you are calm, thoughtful, and have a history of wise decisions. These are all qualities that make a good Arbitrator. I have noticed that you have been somewhat reserved in commenting on ArbCom matters and I figured you have been quietly contemplating and giving each matter its due consideration. But it also occurred to me that it could be something else and that you may have felt pushed in to running, and I hope that's not the case. I know I wasn't the only one to suggest you run. Being an Arbitrator is a dirty and thankless job. You get the most difficult problems and the most upset people and you have to come up with a solution that is both good for the project and good for the community. And the only feedback you get is from people who are upset at the committee's decisions. So I just wanted to provide some positive feedback and say that I'm thankful for the support you've given to the community. I also wanted to check in to see how you are doing and hope that you are well. Kind regards. 64.40.54.47 ( talk) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I feel honoured that my work is clearly being replicated/copied here as it saves me having to hunt down the sources later =D. I was right when i suspected earlier that my work was helping the Resident Evil wiki, and that's my proof. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm That Turned, we're looking to finalise numbers and I just wanted to confirm that you're still interested in attending the event on 23-24th February? Thanks, Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm That Turned, the details of the venue are now on the UK wiki. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 13:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 15:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't know if you are aware of the diary clash between a strategy workshop that WMUK want to hold and the 17th Manchester meetup? Feel free to comment at Meta:Talk:Meetup/Manchester/17#Diary clash or wmuk:Talk:Looking at the next five years – a day workshop on the future of Wikimedia UK#Diary clash.
Yaris678 ( talk) 10:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the proofread fix but Pod tried exactly the same thing and for him made the image itself disappear! I know he's a little stupid, but he's not that stupid. I guess it only works when arbs do it? Hardly fair! And Worm, could you please take a look at Giano's query on my page? When I click on the two redlinked images, I merely get directed to the Upload Wizard, it's ridiculous. I mean, I am after all an admin (I did it myself, not Pod), so I thought I'd be able to see what has happened to them, but no. :-( Bishonen | talk 15:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
Hey Dave,
Multiple IPs have continuously removed the See Also section from the Death of Jill Meagher article, citing that, " The correlation of this article to others regarding "Murder", may be in breach of the suppression order issued by the Victorian court. Please cease referring to "Murder". The family does not want the defendant to "walk" due to these [assertions]", and a section on the article's talk page here.
The article's in question relate to the subject matter, in my opinion, and also, would this article be subject to the suppression order handled by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court? — MelbourneStar☆ talk 02:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Did you know that if you type "Commons:" into the search bar you'll go to commons, or "Meta:" "Wikibooks:" "Wiktionary:" etc.? If you type "wiki:" you go to http://c2.com/cgi/wiki Ryan Vesey 05:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget to give User:Julia W her barnstar! -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I put this notice at Dl2000 talkpage after he edited an article which was just rewriting of order of dates, which as you know is not welcomed in Wikipedia. Can you please check if I wrote everything nice? I think I did it the way it should be...-- Mishae ( talk) 04:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
So I decided to check his contributions and it turned out that he had done that repitedly before: Buzzcocks, Tommy Robinson (English Defence League), and Soundwave (Australian music festival), all of which were after he edited mine. Yes, both of them have use dmy template, but isn't it considered to be destructive to go after every user and just switch the date around? In fact, don't you think it would consider to be harrasing? Not to mention he didn't respond to my notice, and therefore probably ignored it. Should I warn him again?-- Mishae ( talk) 03:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Update: I just received back from him, so I put another reply. I hope I didn't exagerate?
I do have a question though: Maybe I should put that template for a discussion? You see, its pointless for a bot-generated article to carry it! Sure, bot articles are partly created by humans, but bots don't have preferences.:)-- Mishae ( talk) 04:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
On 26 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Life story work, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that life story work can be beneficial to adults with dementia? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.
Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.
1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:
Metric | Control group | Teahouse group | Contrast |
---|---|---|---|
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) | 5.02 weeks | 8.57 weeks | 1.7x retention |
Average number of articles edited | 58.7 articles | 116.9 edits | 2.0x articles edited |
Average talk page edits | 36.5 edits | 85.6 edits | 2.4x talk page edits |
Average article space edits | 129.6 edits | 360.4 edits | 2.8x article edits |
Average total edits (all namespaces) | 182.1 edits | 532.4 edits | 2.9x total edits |
Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper
Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.
Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
Hi Dave, I've uploaded (via Doug) the disambiguation training material that we developed on the TtT course. If you want it, it's here: [1]. Cheers, Bazonka ( talk) 21:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
Teahouse First Birthday Badge | |
Awarded to everyone who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thanks for the piece on microgrants - I hope it will inspire others. My in-laws lived just by the Doom Bar fro over twenty years and my kids kept digging at it to make sandcastles! I love the beer too! Jon Davies (WMUK) ( talk) 11:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC) |
Don't forget the 'merkin Dave. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your gracious withdrawal. ``` Buster Seven Talk 16:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You know, if you want there to be a mutual interaction ban proposed then you can just take the wording for Sarek's interaction ban and substitute "Orlady" for Sarek's name.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just looking over my RfA from last summer, and I decided to follow a link posted by Demiurge1000 to your adoption lessons for the sake of getting a better understanding of copyright policy. I went ahead, reviewed Lesson 3, and decided to test myself to see the correct answers (i.e. the ones by the adoptee in conjunction with whatever corrections you've applied, if any). My understanding is that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and content submitted to Wikipedia is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
My two questions are as follows:
Thanks in advance. Kurtis (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize first of all for transcluding it, but you are right with the "edgy" thing with his RFA. Some of the old guard would cringe on this delay and wouldn't look good on the nominee at all. He needs to make a decision fast, as the further it gets delayed, the more likely issues will be bought up knowing from experience from previous people RFAs. Also on a side note, there is a list of editors I'm looking to nominate for RFA myself, and I want to discuss them with you though email or private IRC chat. I agree RFA needs to be more active, and while the "admin score" thing is extremely flawed from an experienced user perspective, I'm seeing some "diamonds in the rough" candidates as well that should be nominated. Secret account 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dave, How are you! I am not very familiar with this sort of communication, so please forgive me. I am writing regarding concerns for an addition in Wikipedia regarding 'Juvederm', a product for medical use. There was a recent edit on the 26th of September 2012 - it stated that - 'Due to the hydrophilic nature of Juvederm it is generally not recommended for use under the eyes directly sub-orbital. Many patients have reported "bags" under the eyes which is in effect non-pitting edema due to water retention. Excessive amounts of Juvederm may also cause undesirable results. Hyaluronidase may be injected to reduce the amount of injected Juvederm to a desirable level.' Please note that there has been no scientific medical evidence for this. As a practitioner who uses the product, and one who also works with Allergan who manufactures the product, I have felt it necessary to make the proper corrections, while citing scientific evidence to support the correction. The problem goes even deeper - this entry was made a few days before a patient quoted Wikipedia as a source for bringing a lawsuit against a respected physician. We believe that this entry was deliberate and meant to be misleading. Can you please inform me as to the procedure for requesting the IP address using 'checkuser'? I am not sure whether I should provide the username in this public forum, or whether it should be done via private email. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmeticspecialist ( talk • contribs)
While it was tempered with an iff, do you sincerely believe that actions taken by Doncram are worth an indefinite ban rather than an indefinite block? This is an issue that Arbs have tended not to consider, and some don't appear to understand, but I hope that they will start now. Ryan Vesey 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to make a personal comment to you about your reply but I also do not want to run afoul of fraternization with an Arb during a case where I've commented. Do you have any concerns with me leaving a comment on your talk page?--v/r - T P 14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If you check user me, and it is very common for curious Wikipedians to do so even though it is wrong, you will see that I used to be a frequent editor several years ago. Some of my edits were from this computer.
Wikipedia is a very hostile environment. After being attacked, the natural reaction is to leave, vandalize, or read but stop editing. I have done the latter. I hope that you will consider the following ideas.
1. It should be deemed a personal attack and a reason to ban an editor if they, lacking the ability to discuss things in a civil and convincing manner, then start to accuse another person of being a sock. This type of behavior is highly effective, showing how juvenile Wikipedia is.
Wikipedia would be far more effective if editors were not allowed to continue to edit if they cannot calmly and rationally discuss issues in the talk pages. This is a far better way to improve an article than to falsely accuse someone of being a sock.
2. Everyone should disclose conflicts of interests. There are plenty. Wikipedia is quick to block someone if their name is a corporate name but allows POV pushers all the time. The most common POV pusher is in biographies of politicians. Some will always push for inclusion of favorable material and exclusion of unfavorable material. They will use excuses such as "undue weight" or "trivia" or will call the other person a sock.
It should be automatically assumed that one is a POV pusher if all their edits are one sided or if they always support a partisan viewpoint in the talk pages. Wikipedia should be neutral.
One way to do it would be for people to disclose possible conflicts on their user page and update them as they edit articles. For example, one could disclose that they are American. Later, if they write about politics, they could disclose that they are a registered party member or a government employee. If they don't want to disclose this, they can stick with botany and animal articles. In academia, people do make disclosures when they give lectures.
3. The last point is not as critical. Wikipedia should try its utmost not to be hypocritical. There have been several cases of unfavorable information about Wikipedia removed from articles and favorable information included. Examples include reporting when entities' own articles have been edited by the entity and then reported in the news. This helps Wikipedia and is included several times. Yet when Wikipedia has egg on its face, like false deaths, even if reported in a news article, is always removed from the article by other editors acting as censors.
Finally, I disclose that I have started an account because I have not edited for so long and do not have my password or even my exact name. It's been years since I edited. VDAWP ( talk) 04:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dave. Now that the Copyright is done and dusted what's up next to do? – Blue☆Stars 83 14:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I blame karma but i got a cold around the time i posted that message and had Stevie looking after me for 3 days. I'm back though ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 10:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
re: this Actually I do have some thoughts on that myself. I have some work to do today, but could throw something together this evening if you're interested. I know you're busy, so I won't pester - just an offer. — Ched : ? 13:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
we found that you needed a lay for administration . So that's why so many editors go for Rfa! NE Ent 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [2]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions? Giano 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do elaborate. I must be misunderstanding something there.— cyberpower ChatOnline 00:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello WormTT, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Dave, Hope you are well. Parents have favorite children, but they don't admit it for obvious reasons. I have lived by that philosophy here at Wikipedia... until now. You are my favorite. You are the number one Wikipedian. You care deeply about the project and I am very thankful you are here supporting Wikipedia. You're doing a good job and I appreciate you efforts. I just thought you could use some support during these trying times. If I can make your wiki-life even the slightest bit more enjoyable, then I am more than happy to do so. Kind regards. 64.40.54.27 ( talk) 13:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitrator's Barnstar | |
I seem to be in the minority, but I still have faith in the ArbCom, and that is in no small part due to you being on it. Thank you for what you have submitted yourself to, and I hope, for the sake of you and for the sake of the encyclopedia as a whole, that things calm down and everyone can get back to building content. Thank you for your work. A grateful Go Phightins ! 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
No problem. Yep, I did notice that it's (wiki discussion) been rather .. ummm .. active(?) lately. I had also dropped the link on Risker's page btw. Anyway - I'll leave it alone, and my door is always open. — Ched : ? 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You suggested you wanted to address these questions here [4] Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
So what we need to do is work out a way to minimise the annoyed people. The decisions still have to be made and Arbcom shouldn't be shying away from making them, but I've found that people can accept decisions if they understand the reasons for those decisions and are given time to prepare themselves. In other words, communication is key. It allows people to collect their thoughts and draw their own conclusions - they shouldn't be shocked by any decisions. That's where the chasm lies, the committee doesn't appear to respect the community enough which leads to the community not trusting the committee.
The worst part is that the majority of what the committee does, it does well. I wouldn't have believed how well myself until I got a chance to look behind the curtain. Discussion is robust, privacy is respected and decisions are made. Arbcom has to deal with so much, primarily because no one else will and these things need to be handled. The community often doesn't see what the committee does, things like acting as a place where you can state if your family member has started editing or child protection requests or unban requests, but they're handled. No mess, no fuss. It's where the committee doesn't get it right and the community can't understand why that we get problems.
The committee does what it needs to do, which does mean that it's remit has extended beyond the hypothetical "sorting intractable disputes" which people think of when they think of "arbitration". Is that what it is supposed to do? Yes, I think so, these are tasks that need to be done. Does the community understand that? As a whole, yes, I believe it does. There are vocal people who'd want it torn down, but in general I think that the community is happy that it does what needs to be done.
Policy is more difficult, I don't believe policy is black and white on all situations and Arbcom deals with the "edge-cases". If it was clear, Arbcom wouldn't be needed. It doesn't help that one of the founding rules is to ignore the others if it improves the encyclopedia. So yes, I think that the committee understands policy and is willing to think around policy to determine the spirit of the policy and how that would apply. The community shouldn't be getting bogged down in sorting every minute detail of every possible scenario, I think that it has articulated policy correctly.
Finally, the fact that there is a decision from the committee is often enough for the community to move forwards. Whether that decision is right or wrong is not as important as the fact that a decision has been made. Every decision that arbcom makes is destined to be the "wrong" one for someone, so there will generally be protestations, it's just a fact of life. I hope that's covered everything, but feel free to discuss further! WormTT( talk) 12:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Ye 'ole Broken Tuchus ref Barnstar | ||
For your extended efforts, and breaking yon Gluteus maximus (your backside, behind, butt, rear-end - OK "Busting Ass") to maintain the drama levels of Wikipedia, Ched would like to award you (da Worm) the Broken Tuchus Barnstar. |
Heyas Worm, are you available to run a CU for me? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
if only huh? :) — Ched : ? 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi... I have been watching ArbCom for years, and go through periods of editing / commenting. I wanted to tell you that I have noticed some of your recent posts / actions and that I have been impressed. I was glad to see when you noticed the prior actions of Kevin in the BLP deletions and saw that maybe that ArbCom had encouraged an unhelpful degree of BOLD-action (though I also felt the "emergency" desysop was a bad decision). You have been offering clearer and more forthright comments than are typical from Arbitrators (excluding NYB) and I think that is a positive development. I've seen you requesting comments on ArbCom, which is also encouraging to see. ArbCom have certainly made a huge mess recently but I wanted to say that you have earned at least one editor's respect for trying to handle the situations well. Regards, EdChem ( talk) 00:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here are a few thoughts on current messes (I'll sign each so you can respond to each point if you wish):
But that's not what you're asking. You are asking whether a CU was justified at the time. The checkuser was based on the fact that the policy had been violated (both accounts had edited the project space) and allegations were credible - it was also stated that the intention was to exonerate Malleus, as few of us believed Malleus was the sort to use sockpuppets. This was sufficient to call the actions justifiable. I personally felt that the justification was not sufficient, as did a number of my collegues, but the checkuser had been made before I was even aware of the thread. One arbitrator cross posted his opinion that a checkuser was not justified at the same time the result was given. This is an example of the reactionary nature of the committee, wanting to right wrongs quickly. It is something that we've discussed at length since and I have already seen improvement in the committee when a similar case came up recently.
Retroactively, it was clear that if they were the same person, they had violated many inappropriate uses of alternate accounts and I think that a checkuser would have been justified after a little more investigation. Topics and style of editing was similar. George carried on editing whilst Malleus was blocked 1, George edited project space (Village pump and RfA 2), the pair appeared to tag-team edit war (which is dubious, but both did edit the same article) 3 and even arguably "Good Hand, Bad Hand" editing. There are a number of instances where mention was made by George of Malleus or vice versa which appeared to a certain reading to be evading scrutiny. When looked at these would have justified an investigation, and since SPI would not have touched it due to the subject, Arbcom was the right place to do it.
Of course, if these were different people, the vast majority of these technical violations fell down. The accounts did not particularly attempt to influence consensus, so under a "spirit" reading of policy rather than a "letter" reading, there was less of a problem. We start having to worry about shared accounts and meatpuppetry, but they're different problems. WormTT( talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi WTT.
Captain Occam is a site-banned editor who has been involved in repeated arbcom campaigns against me on wikipedia. When topic-banned he edited through his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, who inherited his topic ban. He then brought in at least two other off-wiki friends to help him bypass his topic ban. Eventually he stopped adding content and just engaged in arbcom proceedings firstly against me and then against others (MastCell, Orangemarlin). When Orangemarlin was recovering from major surgery and not editing wikipedia, Captain Occam pressed for him to be site-banned (following the Abortion case). Subsequently Risker blocked both of them. Because of issues connected with proxy-editing, Captain Occam and his girlfriend were site-banned in May 2012. Subsequently the two editors who had edited on their behalf attempted to continue arbcom proceedings against me. One of them is now indefinitely banned and the other, outside arbcom pages, had effectively stopped editing wikipedia.
Captain Occam is now using wikipediocracy as a base for continuing his campaign against me. That is all he seems to do there. In every thread he enters, his posts seem geared to some form of attack on me. Captain Occam has not been truthful in his submissions on wikipedia, so when he repeats himself off-wikipedia, the statements are even more questionable. Please do not allow you yourself to be trolled by him. If you want information about him, ask Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Carcharoth or Risker. I am sorry this has happened, but that is one of the perils of wikipediocracy. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 10:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm. Your comment there seems to have resulted in the page being fully protected, which is not called for by any policy. There actually are many needs to post to the talk page. We have bots and editorial processes where Cla68 would receive routine notices about article or image business. Even if Cla68 is blocked, his friends watch that page and could be fixing things. Could you have a look, and try to rectify this? I had proposed a notice limiting discussion to content matters, and directing any discussion of the block to a suitable venue, with a warning that misplaced comments could be removed. Jehochman Talk 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that's enough here, you may of course email me. WormTT( talk) 12:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi Worm That Turned, Do you believe that every Wikipedian (I do not mean vandals, pedophiles or criminals) should have the right to defend/explain his actions during the Arbitration Committee and/or the Wikipedia community discussions regarding himself, if that defense/explanations involves no outing, no secret information and no harm to the project ? If your answer to my question is "no", could you please provide some examples of the exceptions as you see them. Thanks. 71.198.215.196 ( talk) 05:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
|
A discussion which relates to actions or comments made by you can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Peter Damian socks. Fram ( talk) 15:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We have a problem with user /info/en/?search=User:Ronz and /info/en/?search=User:Dougweller
They are stopping honest debate at /info/en/?search=Talk:Bosnian_pyramids
My recent addition on the TALK page was deleted. There was no discussion - just deleted. I have a copy for proof. Their violation of wikipedia rules jeopardises everything you and all Honest wikipedia editors DO.
What can we do to stop their bad behaviour? Perhaps this may be their last chance.
Thank you for your work. Your honesty is your saviour. Aaron Sanders (edits as Sovereign SoEvReigns and GBCIR and SoPhi'A) 82.127.43.154 ( talk) 09:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Sovereign SoEvReigns
Hello. I suggest you have glance of this edit history page. Till yesterday the article was nearly wholly in Tamil on en:wp. I move it to the user's sandbox with a note on his talk page to this effect.
This user then used Twinkle to move the page again to the article section.
Since the article had the subject's crucial contact details such as the phone number, another used tagged it for speedy deletion. A hitherto unknown IP removed the speedy-tag. But I guess that once speedy tagging is done, a decision to delete or keep the article should be by the admin rather than an arbitrary decision. Hence I restored the speedy tag with a note that it's upto admins to decide on the article.
I guess an admin removed the speedy and the article is accepted as a stub.
BUT WHAT SURPRISES ME IS THAT MANY EDITS ARE HIDDEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE ARTICLE INCLUDING MINE, THE ARTICLE-CREATOR'S AND OTHER USERS'. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR SUCH A MOVE AND HENCE REQUEST YOU TO UNHIDE THE HIDDEN EDITS WHICH ARE 30-40 EDITS. AN URGENT ACTION IS REQUESTED. Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 17:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC).
Thank you for the clarification. Btw, my only concern was the untraceability of the edits in the history - and to this was the first time on en:wp. I was never concerned with the pictures. Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC).
Considering the reasons for Cla68's recent block, could you take a look at this post on Jimbo's talk page, as well as the fact that he restored it after someone removed it? The post links to various articles on Wikipediocracy that reveal the personal details of Wikipedia editors. Just wondering if you find this to be a blockable event, and if not, what the difference is between this event and Cla68's event. I would have blocked him already, but there is probably a reasonable argument that I'm too involved. Thanks. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that these kinds of allegations against another editor, especially one who is identified on-wiki, is a serious problem and it is prohibited by the relevant policy. You guys should stop mentioning this individual by name.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, we have an editor who cannot be named, who links his user page to his Facebook page, where he states "Information about me that is highly controversial (relates to child pornography): http://www.webcitation.org/[redacted]". In said link he tells a story about being arrested for "having made illegal pornography available to minors", and talks about setting up an FTP server for "...nude photos of prepubescent boys (aroused or not), photos showing such young boys engaged sexually with each other, or pictures of adult men having sex with these young boys...". Am I missing something? He's not ecactly hiding it, theres a link right there on his user page. Kevin ( talk) 02:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dave. I want to show the giant table on C3 Picasso as a {{Brick chart}} to simplify it. But if i'm going to do that then i could remove half of it by removing either the fuel economy or CO2 figures. Neither sways me one way or the other so i'm here for your opinion on what to delete if anything. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about what someone at the help desk said and i've stripped out the mpg figures too. They're difficult to cite, easily confusing and disputable in some instances, and there's the fact that i can simplify the article by removing them. Now the table just says which engines are available to each model. My question now is do i need to cite them as available at all? Or should i just do it if anything is later disputed? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Nudge =P ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 08:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, this user posted on Jimbo's talk page; can you take a look at their user page and see if some oversighting needs to be done due to their age -- specifically the external links to family websights. Once reviewed, I guess remove this thread from your talk page, too, for privacy's sake. Rgrds. -- 64.85.214.134 ( talk) 14:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for getting your adoption pages CSD tagged - it was sort of entirely my fault; I'd transcluded the test to a new user subpage rather than substituting it, so he couldn't add his answers there. Yunshui 雲 水 13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
O.K. So this time I am in a conflict with user Rkitko, who realised that I was editing taxoboxes again and combining them with my good faith edits, and Ryan told me I am allowed to do it. Now user Rkitko is angry at me and gives the last warning, which means I either wont edit another article and be bored to tears, or I will edit it my way, he will revert my good faith edits, and I will get blocked! Question, is it modest for a user to ask an admin to block him and if so, should I remove, "this user is block free" template from my user page? Also, can you view my discussion here?-- Mishae ( talk) 14:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi -- I notice you've been active in nominating at RfA over the past year, and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject for Nominators, which aims to support editors interested in nominating there. We'd be glad of your expertise in getting this new project off the ground. Apologies for the talk-page spamming if you've already seen this message a dozen times. Regards, Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dave/staplers! How would i give attribution for using vehicle images from Wikimedia Commons which have been modified to remove the badge? Do i just add that the images are sourced from the Wikimedia Commons on the Terms and Conditions of the site with a brief wording? Or does this have to be done some other way? I asked a similar question at the help desk before but didn't get a useful reply. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's a plate full of cookies to share! | |
Hi Worm That Turned/Archive 24, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{ subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC) |