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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
So what gives? The whole page is littered with {{nao}}'s. How does it assist the Administratura, who will only go and double-check anyway :p Muffled Pocketed 18:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It does seem that the page is being used in a different way from what the "Important!" box says. If the box is outdated, it should probably be updated to describe the current system. If the box is still accurate, it could be made more explicit, to try to avoid non-qualifying submissions.-- Yeryry ( talk) 14:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
If you look in the archives, you will find that the idea of non-admin "clerking" has been discussed before and thought not to be needed. Removing obvious false positives from the bot and reviewing all the old reports in holding are much more useful things non-admins can do instead of leaving comments, which, as pointed out at the beginning of the thread, admins will have to review for themselves anyway. It's not that your comments are wrong or annoying, it's that admins are accountable for their actions and as such they have to check for themselves before blocking anyone. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
So, I've seen a few reports lately of promotional or shared use usernames in other languages, the prime examples being these two
I'm honestly not sure what to do about these. Is a username really a blatant violation of the English Wikipedia username policy if the username is only understandable as a violation when someone takes the time to translate it into English? I'd love to hear what other administrators think about this. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 21:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I used to be a regular here but haven't been lately. I've just spent some time dealing with the backlog in the holding pen, it is now up to date. However, I am seeing a lot of recent reports that have been put there without any comment or reply. Traditionally, this is not how the holding pen is used. It is only for reports marked as either "wait until the user edits" , "discussing with user" or one of the "it's worth keeping an eye on" messages. I don't see how it serves the project to just toss reports in the holding pen without addressing them at all. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
EpicMan as you are a new user with less than 100 edits I'm taking the time to inform you on the UAA talk page that reports of editors should only be made where the editor has actively edited in the past 2-3 weeks. You've made three reports of editors who appear to have never edited on the encyclopaedia. Wait until the user edits. applies to all of your reports. Additionally you have an uncanny level of knowledge for a new editor, have you edited previously as an IP or under a different account? Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Moved here from main page Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I have blocked the account. Regardless of how it was done, the username is a blatant violation. Moved this here so discussion can continue without being removed by the bot. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The last time there was a serious discussion of this supposed exemption to the rules consensus was that it is not an actual exemption. The feeling was that spamming is spamming and soft blocks are not particularly harmful. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Linguist111: Please note the above, and also, from that same rfc consensus was that admins have some discretion when deciding whether to block names with no edits whatsoever. I am willing to do it in the case of hate speech or severe BLP violations, but I don't have to and I'm getting a little tired of being countermanded by you. The community has given this job to administrators because we are expected to use our best judgement and act accordingly, not because we are policy-following robots with no ability to think for ourselves. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, you are not helping with all these "discussing with the user" when the names are a blatant violation. You are taking something simple and making it complicated. When an admin sees a blatant violation they can issue a soft block and 95% of the time that's it, problem solved. When instead, you decide to open a discussion, then it has to be put in here, held for a week, and then re-checked to see how it turned out. I'm assuming you are honestly trying to help out with backlogs but in reality this is not helpful at all and I would ask you to please stop doing it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups. Any and all input is welcome. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This does not make sense. If the user has made edits they are sitting in the revision histories. There is a BLP username violation in List of performance poets history for May 20, 2016. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 02:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The bot hasn't been removing the blocked users the past day. Has something gone wrong with the page syntax or something? Linguist talk| contribs 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This page 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. |
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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
So what gives? The whole page is littered with {{nao}}'s. How does it assist the Administratura, who will only go and double-check anyway :p Muffled Pocketed 18:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It does seem that the page is being used in a different way from what the "Important!" box says. If the box is outdated, it should probably be updated to describe the current system. If the box is still accurate, it could be made more explicit, to try to avoid non-qualifying submissions.-- Yeryry ( talk) 14:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
If you look in the archives, you will find that the idea of non-admin "clerking" has been discussed before and thought not to be needed. Removing obvious false positives from the bot and reviewing all the old reports in holding are much more useful things non-admins can do instead of leaving comments, which, as pointed out at the beginning of the thread, admins will have to review for themselves anyway. It's not that your comments are wrong or annoying, it's that admins are accountable for their actions and as such they have to check for themselves before blocking anyone. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
So, I've seen a few reports lately of promotional or shared use usernames in other languages, the prime examples being these two
I'm honestly not sure what to do about these. Is a username really a blatant violation of the English Wikipedia username policy if the username is only understandable as a violation when someone takes the time to translate it into English? I'd love to hear what other administrators think about this. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 21:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I used to be a regular here but haven't been lately. I've just spent some time dealing with the backlog in the holding pen, it is now up to date. However, I am seeing a lot of recent reports that have been put there without any comment or reply. Traditionally, this is not how the holding pen is used. It is only for reports marked as either "wait until the user edits" , "discussing with user" or one of the "it's worth keeping an eye on" messages. I don't see how it serves the project to just toss reports in the holding pen without addressing them at all. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
EpicMan as you are a new user with less than 100 edits I'm taking the time to inform you on the UAA talk page that reports of editors should only be made where the editor has actively edited in the past 2-3 weeks. You've made three reports of editors who appear to have never edited on the encyclopaedia. Wait until the user edits. applies to all of your reports. Additionally you have an uncanny level of knowledge for a new editor, have you edited previously as an IP or under a different account? Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Moved here from main page Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I have blocked the account. Regardless of how it was done, the username is a blatant violation. Moved this here so discussion can continue without being removed by the bot. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The last time there was a serious discussion of this supposed exemption to the rules consensus was that it is not an actual exemption. The feeling was that spamming is spamming and soft blocks are not particularly harmful. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Linguist111: Please note the above, and also, from that same rfc consensus was that admins have some discretion when deciding whether to block names with no edits whatsoever. I am willing to do it in the case of hate speech or severe BLP violations, but I don't have to and I'm getting a little tired of being countermanded by you. The community has given this job to administrators because we are expected to use our best judgement and act accordingly, not because we are policy-following robots with no ability to think for ourselves. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, you are not helping with all these "discussing with the user" when the names are a blatant violation. You are taking something simple and making it complicated. When an admin sees a blatant violation they can issue a soft block and 95% of the time that's it, problem solved. When instead, you decide to open a discussion, then it has to be put in here, held for a week, and then re-checked to see how it turned out. I'm assuming you are honestly trying to help out with backlogs but in reality this is not helpful at all and I would ask you to please stop doing it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups. Any and all input is welcome. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This does not make sense. If the user has made edits they are sitting in the revision histories. There is a BLP username violation in List of performance poets history for May 20, 2016. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 02:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The bot hasn't been removing the blocked users the past day. Has something gone wrong with the page syntax or something? Linguist talk| contribs 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This page 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. |