This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.38.126.156 (talk) at 03:01, 12 July 2010 (→daniel case: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:01, 12 July 2010 by 99.38.126.156 (talk) (→daniel case: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
| |||||||||||||||||
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
User talk:208.80.152.74
I'm kinda confused; what's this block about? CU doesn't show any troublesome edits from that IP. --jpgordon 04:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since NW is off-line, I'll respond. I believe the troublesome edit is this one, which was one of a series of troublesome edits made in a concerted effort over a short period of time to the same article. Having said that, this IP geolocates to ...umm... WMF, and thus there's probably something else behind this. Concur with the notion of unblocking. Risker (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, MediaWiki fail? Or we have a vandal at WMF... T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for handling it guys. I wonder what happened in Florida last night that caused that. NW (Talk) 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found this and this regarding Sunday evening's community wikibreak (or should that be "wikibroken"?). Richwales (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for handling it guys. I wonder what happened in Florida last night that caused that. NW (Talk) 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, MediaWiki fail? Or we have a vandal at WMF... T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
To fast
was a bit quick. Yes, the sock accounts were blocked, but there was ongoing discussions about other aspects of the case, and no consensus on the evidence for the sock-master. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I have reopened the case. NW (Talk) 15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
OTRS issue
Hi, I'm here for an OTRS issue I asked J Milburn, but he/she disappeared, so maybe I can ask you?: Wizir01 (talk · contribs) added permission OTRS templates to File:StevenFineforWikipedia.jpg, File:Louis Feldman.jpg, and File:Richard Steiner2.jpg, which were uploaded by the user, who is not an OTRS volunteer. I'm not sure that's legit. Many uploads by Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs), who is not listed as an OTRS volunteer either, about the bloggingheads website have had an OTRS ticket added by the user, concerning #2007111910004338 I just wonder because if it's all free on that website, I didn't find a note to that effect there and one would probably expect it. Could you perhaps check that out? Thank you very much! Hekerui (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I checked them out, and the three images by Wizir look good. The entire site of Bloggingheads.tv is published under GFDL version 1.2, per that OTRS ticket. NW (Talk) 15:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Need advice
Hello NW. I am currently helping a newbie create a new article here. He asked some questions about uploading copyrighted images that I would like some additional input in. If you have a minute, could you drop by? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 17:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just answered his three most recent questions, as I skimmed the discussion very quickly. If there is something else that you would like me to address, feel free to point it out. Best, NW (Talk) 22:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Right now I'm trying to point out to him that a photo of a copyrighted photo is not free. I have been telling him that since day 1. I'm not sure if he's getting the message. Airplaneman ✈ 12:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain your actions?
You blocked an editor for abusing multiple accounts even though the investigation reached no such conclusion. Can you please explain your actions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to just quote the administrator B here for my response: "If TND were editing through a real ISP, I'd certainly be more open to the possibility that they were not the same person, but there's enough here for me. Two accounts use the same style of edit summaries, the same formatting, have the same POV on the same articles, and are both editing from open proxies (which itself is against the rules)? I think we can call it a duck." To me, that about covers it. NW (Talk) 22:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- But that's not what the sock investigation concluded. Is it normal to ignore the results of sock puppet investigations? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- The checkuser said it was "technically inconclusive" due to proxy abuse, but also said "Go by behavior as needed." That's a key phrase, and the block was quite sound.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then why didn't the sock puppet investigation conclude that this was a sockpuppet? I'm seeing a disconnect here. The investigation did not conclude that the account was a sock puppet but the account was blocked anyway. What's the point of having a sock puppet investigation if it's just going to be ignored? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your question pertains to the larger issue of why Misplaced Pages has no formal, established guidelines or checklists for administrators to follow when conducting admin actions, such as deciding when to block an account for possible socking. As a result, admin actions can end up appearing to be arbitrary or random, depending on the experience level and opinion of the admin who decides to take action. Any administrator in Misplaced Pages could have stepped in here and decided either to follow the adice of the sock investigator or not. NW chose not to. It is not his/her fault that this is the way things are done here. Administrators are left to make decisions based on their own discretion. Misplaced Pages's governance definitely needs some drastic reform so that admin actions will be more uniform, standardized and consistent, but I don't know if it will ever happen. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I for one would not want to see Misplaced Pages run like the Marine Corps. (Nothing against the Marine Corps, btw.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't you quit using an administrator account? So, don't you have concerns about the way Misplaced Pages is administered? Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I for one would not want to see Misplaced Pages run like the Marine Corps. (Nothing against the Marine Corps, btw.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your question pertains to the larger issue of why Misplaced Pages has no formal, established guidelines or checklists for administrators to follow when conducting admin actions, such as deciding when to block an account for possible socking. As a result, admin actions can end up appearing to be arbitrary or random, depending on the experience level and opinion of the admin who decides to take action. Any administrator in Misplaced Pages could have stepped in here and decided either to follow the adice of the sock investigator or not. NW chose not to. It is not his/her fault that this is the way things are done here. Administrators are left to make decisions based on their own discretion. Misplaced Pages's governance definitely needs some drastic reform so that admin actions will be more uniform, standardized and consistent, but I don't know if it will ever happen. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then why didn't the sock puppet investigation conclude that this was a sockpuppet? I'm seeing a disconnect here. The investigation did not conclude that the account was a sock puppet but the account was blocked anyway. What's the point of having a sock puppet investigation if it's just going to be ignored? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- The checkuser said it was "technically inconclusive" due to proxy abuse, but also said "Go by behavior as needed." That's a key phrase, and the block was quite sound.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- But that's not what the sock investigation concluded. Is it normal to ignore the results of sock puppet investigations? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, nor is CheckUser a be-all and end-all in determining sock puppetry. I should have clarified that CU did not establish a definitive connection. If they both were caught using open proxies and exhibit the similar behaviors, then it's certainly not unreasonable to suspect that they're the same person. –MuZemike 00:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- @AQFK & Cla68: As MuZemike notes, checkuser has serious limitations. If open proxies are being used, a definitive IP connection will be impossible to determine. In cases like these where the only information about the IP is really the absence of such information, an administrator has to use their best judgment to see whether or not the behavioral evidence matches up (see Misplaced Pages:Open_proxies#Checkuser). If it does (and I believe it did in this case), then appropriate action should be taken. Cla68, you mention that Misplaced Pages's governance should undergo reform so that administrator actions should be made more consistent. I agree that such a thing would be nice, but could you please clarify whether or not you feel I made a mistake? NW (Talk) 01:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't saying that you made a mistake. I'm reserving judgement on it. Your explanation of your reasoning behind your decision, however, is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of each administrator having to build their own skillset of admin knowledge based on personal experience and observation, there should be some kind of "best practices" guideline, organized by the common issues that administrators usually have to confront, providing tips and, yes, checklists (including if/then steps), for how to respond to different kinds of situations, such as the one in question here. Such a guideline would make it easier for admins of different experience levels to make decisions on what actions to take and when, and also make it easier to explain themselves, for example, "Step 5 of the sock checklist states that once the CU investigation is complete to evaluate other factors, such as, are open proxies being used..?" Such a guideline would not remove individual discretion from the process (which I think SBHB is referring to above, and, by the way, that is a stereotype that he is perpetuating about the USMC. The USMC actually encourages individual initiative and discretion in its members), but would help guide decision-making in repeatable situations. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Signs of sock puppetry and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance covers some (though not all) of what you mention, but I think I better understand what you meant now, and agree with you that such a thing would be helpful for a large majority of cases. Thank you. NW (Talk) 01:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have also tried when I rewrote Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions (with additional help from FT2 and others) with the goal of guiding administrators, by the hand almost, through SPI cases and what to do. That page is supposed to be for all administrators to read over and be familiar with. The problem is that most do not, and instead they leave detecting sock puppetry to either SPI clerks or to administrators who are more clueful in the field of sock puppetry – something I've always been against, as I believe every admin should have at least some minimal knowledge of what sock puppetry is and entails; it's not something limited to only Misplaced Pages, as any administrator on any website needs to know stuff like this to stop and prevent abuse and to uphold the online community's collective integrity. –MuZemike 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- That page is the kind of thing I'm talking about, and I appreciate you taking the time to write it. Admin candidates should probably affirm at the time of nomination that they have read those guidelines. On another note, I understand that some admins don't want to have all the "secrets" of how they investigate sockpuppeting revealed publicly, for obvious reasons. Some close hold institutional knowledge is probably ok. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- You know, Cla68, I often agree with your points, but in this case I disagree quite a bit. The range of tasks that can be carried out by administrators is so great that only the most obsessed amongst them will ever be competent in all of them. I put to you that it is a better sign of an administrator to recognise which tasks are beyond one's skill or ability and not carry them out. Frankly, if all potential administrators are expected to understand how every aspect of adminship works in advance of appointment, we won't have any administrators. Much better to have administrators who truly understand a few specific areas. It's expectations such as this that turn adminship into a ridiculously big deal. There are at least ten things that I supposedly am able to do as an administrator that I've never done, and never intend to do, because they either (a) are outside of my skillset or (b) do not interest me in the least. Yet there doesn't seem to be any consensus that I'm a bad admin. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, though. Risker (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say that potential admins need to take an examination or undergo tryouts. I don't think it is onerous to ask admin candidates to read the admin guidelines and how-tos first before accepting the responsibilities. If you think the current level of professionalism among our admin corps is adequate, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I could be wrong, of course, but it appears to me that the 90/10 rule is in full force here- 90% of the tougher admin chores, such as sock investigations, are being carried out by 10% of the editors who currently carry admin privileges. If there were better instructions on how to do everything, and every admin had affirmed that they had at least reviewed the instructions before getting involved, I think admin actions would be much more consistent in nature, be done by a larger percentage of admins, more effective in the outcomes, and there would be much less arguing and drama afterwards. Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Less arguing and drama afterwards" would occur if you would resist posting in this thread. It is quite evident NW made an appropriate block here, but for some reason it is turning into this elongated discussion about why, to quote you, "Misplaced Pages's governance definitely needs some drastic reform". Would you rather I unblock and reblock? I see no benefit to arguing the completely mundane here, and pretty much everyone who frequents SPI has endorsed this block so far. So unless you have something concrete to say here, I think it's best that this discussion be dropped. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm arguing the big picture. I saw this as an opportunity for a teachable moment. You want to keep things focused on this one incident. That's fine, but keep in mind as long as the big picture goes unaddressed, IMO, you and the other admins will have to explain your actions more than should be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- My point is merely that discussing it here is going to get us nowhere. If you really think it's something that "goes unaddressed" then take it up in a more appropriate venue, such as WP:VP, WP:AN, WP:RFC or something that's not basically a back alley discussion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just trying to plant a seed, Shirik. As far as this block goes, we may never know if this account was a sock of the editor in question or not, but it seems that NW put a lot of thought into it and I appreciate his effort to explain why he made the decision that he did. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- My point is merely that discussing it here is going to get us nowhere. If you really think it's something that "goes unaddressed" then take it up in a more appropriate venue, such as WP:VP, WP:AN, WP:RFC or something that's not basically a back alley discussion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm arguing the big picture. I saw this as an opportunity for a teachable moment. You want to keep things focused on this one incident. That's fine, but keep in mind as long as the big picture goes unaddressed, IMO, you and the other admins will have to explain your actions more than should be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Less arguing and drama afterwards" would occur if you would resist posting in this thread. It is quite evident NW made an appropriate block here, but for some reason it is turning into this elongated discussion about why, to quote you, "Misplaced Pages's governance definitely needs some drastic reform". Would you rather I unblock and reblock? I see no benefit to arguing the completely mundane here, and pretty much everyone who frequents SPI has endorsed this block so far. So unless you have something concrete to say here, I think it's best that this discussion be dropped. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say that potential admins need to take an examination or undergo tryouts. I don't think it is onerous to ask admin candidates to read the admin guidelines and how-tos first before accepting the responsibilities. If you think the current level of professionalism among our admin corps is adequate, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I could be wrong, of course, but it appears to me that the 90/10 rule is in full force here- 90% of the tougher admin chores, such as sock investigations, are being carried out by 10% of the editors who currently carry admin privileges. If there were better instructions on how to do everything, and every admin had affirmed that they had at least reviewed the instructions before getting involved, I think admin actions would be much more consistent in nature, be done by a larger percentage of admins, more effective in the outcomes, and there would be much less arguing and drama afterwards. Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- You know, Cla68, I often agree with your points, but in this case I disagree quite a bit. The range of tasks that can be carried out by administrators is so great that only the most obsessed amongst them will ever be competent in all of them. I put to you that it is a better sign of an administrator to recognise which tasks are beyond one's skill or ability and not carry them out. Frankly, if all potential administrators are expected to understand how every aspect of adminship works in advance of appointment, we won't have any administrators. Much better to have administrators who truly understand a few specific areas. It's expectations such as this that turn adminship into a ridiculously big deal. There are at least ten things that I supposedly am able to do as an administrator that I've never done, and never intend to do, because they either (a) are outside of my skillset or (b) do not interest me in the least. Yet there doesn't seem to be any consensus that I'm a bad admin. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, though. Risker (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Toilet paper orientation is on T:TDYK
Hey NW, you asked for a heads up when I nominated this article. Well, here ya go! Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Melchoir. Looks like Atmoz OK'd the article before I could, but I pointed out a sentence from the article that I thought could make an excellent hook. NW (Talk) 22:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
1RR
Dear NW. I believe applying the 1RR to the Mass killings under Communist regimes article is a correct step, however, it seems to me that some clarification is needed, because some users interpret this restriction in a very odd way, namely, that two or more separate edits made during the same day, or removal of the text (not re-insertion of it) violate 1RR. Since you applied this restriction, it will be logical if you made some clarification on the article's talk page.
9
Sincerely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- A revert is the removal or altering another editors text, please read wp:3rr A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not a standard you've adhered to on the Cl Ch probation. Meanwhile, since I'm here: NW: could you be persuaded to look at and perhaps close the report on MN there? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Paul, could you point out specific edits you would want me to address? I feel that would be a bit easier than speaking in generalities. NW (Talk) 22:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- WMC, I'll try to get to it later, though unfortunately, it seems that the matter has gone stale from administrators choosing to wait rather than take action. In fact, it's been so long that I don't think I could support a block per "preventative, not punitive". NW (Talk) 22:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- (pushing in): it does seem regrattable that the board seems to have fallen into such disuse. However, even if you can't support a block) now it would be helpful to pass a "yes I would have blocked if done in timely fashion". Also, note my request for an extension of MN's sanction William M. Connolley (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nuke you can see the diff`s here I brought it to the edit war board as he refused to self revert even though he had done 3 today mark nutley (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- NW, the diff provided by Mark Nutley is one of specific examples. IMO, 1RR works as follows: if you revert a change and someone re-reverts it, discuss it with the re-reverter rather than reverting it a second time. In other words, if someone removed the text (made a change), you cannot revert it twice without discussion. In addition, if someone made one change, and then made another, totally unrelated change, this doesn't violate 1RR. I fully understand that my request for clarification is somewhat stupid, because you provided the link to 1RR in your post, however, since not everyone appears to be able to understand it correctly, some explicit clarification would be helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Paul, I'm not really sure how to explain it better than you just did. Dr. Connolley (above) used to be a sysop who frequented the 3RR board quite a bit; perhaps he can think of a better way to explain it? NW (Talk) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe, the explicit reference to WP:BURDEN will fix the issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Paul, I'm not really sure how to explain it better than you just did. Dr. Connolley (above) used to be a sysop who frequented the 3RR board quite a bit; perhaps he can think of a better way to explain it? NW (Talk) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- NW, the diff provided by Mark Nutley is one of specific examples. IMO, 1RR works as follows: if you revert a change and someone re-reverts it, discuss it with the re-reverter rather than reverting it a second time. In other words, if someone removed the text (made a change), you cannot revert it twice without discussion. In addition, if someone made one change, and then made another, totally unrelated change, this doesn't violate 1RR. I fully understand that my request for clarification is somewhat stupid, because you provided the link to 1RR in your post, however, since not everyone appears to be able to understand it correctly, some explicit clarification would be helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nuke you can see the diff`s here I brought it to the edit war board as he refused to self revert even though he had done 3 today mark nutley (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with PS's In addition, if someone made one change, and then made another, totally unrelated change, this doesn't violate 1RR. A revert to a given page is *any* revert. You may make at most 3 such reverts per 24h (subject to the usual caveats of this-is-not-a-right). Whether they are related or not is irrelevant. This is (or was) the usual standard for judging 3RR. Unless otherwise specified, the standard for 1RR is the same, except that you can do at most one. On this specific issue it looks like User:EdJohnston has make the right called and blocked PS William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I am afraid that I misunderstood; I did not realize that there were other edits in between Paul's two reverts; I simply thought you reverted two additions one immediately after the other. WMC is correct in that case. NW (Talk) 12:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that WP:1RR is actually clear and correct about this (it's a section of WP:Edit warring). A "one-revert rule" is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". Usually, people who break a 1RR are somewhat surprised, and will agree to self-revert. So I seldom find myself issuing blocks in those cases. Unfortunately this is one case where the person involved felt that other policies trumped WP:Edit warring. This is an argument which he is welcome to raise in policy forums, but has little persuasive value at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is *now*. But it has only just been re-written :-)
- Well, let me summarise. As a result of this incident, 1RR has become a part of WP policy. I am glad that my humble efforts lead to improvement of WP policy. Let me also point out that the EdJohnston's statement ("this is one case where the person involved felt that other policies trumped WP:Edit warring") is simply not true: 1RR was not a part of this policy by the moment of the incident. 1RR was just a restriction imposed by one administrator on the article, and, frankly, this restriction was vaguely formulated. That is why, even before EdJohnston's intervention I asked NW for clarification regarding 1RR. However, instead of waiting while NW explained what concretely did he mean under 1RR, or instead of explaining by himself, EdJohnston simply blocked me. IMO, elementary politeness requires EdJohnston to apologize for his premature intervention into a situation that would be quickly resolved in any event.
- To William M. Connolley. Dear William. Frankly, I am a little bit surprised by your interpretation of 3RR. However, you seem to be a specialist in that part of a policy, so please, explain me the following. Let's consider a situation when two different good faith editors simultaneously edit the same article. The editor A works on the Background section whereas the editor B works with Conclusion. During their editings, they remove some pieces of text in following order:
- The editor A deletes one sentence in Background;
- The editor B deletes one sentence in Conclusion;
- The editor A deletes one word in Background;
- The editor B deletes one word in Conclusion;
- The editor A deletes one more word in Background;
- The editor B deletes one more word in Conclusion;
- My question is: does it mean that both of them exhausted their revert limit? This question is not just my idle curiosity, because if that is the case, something is fundamentally wrong with 3RR policy.
- The main problem with what you've written is that it is all framed in terms of the "I'm entitled to 3 reverts a day" idea. Which the 3RR page does its best to discourage, as do admins in general. But because people do think like that, and because people hate admins using their judgement when it gets themselves blocked, we need to have bright lines. So, yes: in your contrived example above, both sides have not "exhausted their revert limit" but they have both got themselves in a state when one more revert will potentially lead to a block. But more important would be the issue of whether the editors were actually edit warring or not William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I would disagree in this case case. The deletion of a word into two separate sections does not mean they are reverting each other. Unless these words were added recently, it is just simple editing. If the words they are removing were added recently, both editors would count as having made 1 revert, because no one else touched the section they were working in in the middle of their editing sequence. NW (Talk) 10:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I in turn disagree with you, the key error is "each other". Reverting-each-other would be vital to deciding if there was edit warring; but exactly who you are reverting is irrelevant to determining 3RR violations. Unless these words were added recently, it is just simple editing - ah, that brings up pthe other question: since (by definition) all text was added by someone, in a very narrow view any removal of text is a revert. Quite how old the text has to be before it doesn't matter is a judgement call. I was assuming in my analysis that all the text being edited was new enough that a removal counted as a revert. Although I agree that your interpretion is possible, and could easily be used. This is, after all, part of the reason why calls for a mechanical interpretation of 3RR are resisted William M. Connolley (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "all framed in terms of the "I'm entitled to 3 reverts a day" idea." Wrong. I, as well as all other good faith editors am entitled to edit Misplaced Pages, and the policy must provide me with such an opportunity unless I am not edit warring. In the example provided above, these editors simply edit the article, they probably even do not notice each other. It is clear that, had the editor B made no edits, by no means would the behaviour of the editor A be considered a violation of 3RR. Therefore, it is natural to ask, why a good faith editor has to constantly monitor the article's history to make sure that noone made any edit in between his changes? And why he has to stop his work if this change was totally unrelated to the edits he made?
- 3RR (or 1RR) was invented to prevent the users (or the groups of users) to fight against each other: to constantly revert, by removal or modifications, the content their opponents introduce. However, if simultaneous editings do not contradict each other, applying of 3RR is counter-intuitive and counter-productive. Moreover, it directly violates WP spirit. BRD states: if you made a change, and noone reverted it, and the article has been edited further, that means your edits have been accepted, so you may safely continue your work. Obviously, the fact that the editors A and B work on the article simultaneously (such deletions can be just a part of normal editings) and do not revert each other mean that they implicitly support each other's edits. However, the literally interpreted 3RR gives an opportunity to any wikilawyer to report both of them and to paralyse their work.
- I fully understand, that mechanistic use of 3RR facilitates the administrators' job. However, since the primary goal of WP is to create and maintain a good content, not to provide a comfort to administrators, something should be modified in this rule (or in the way it is being applied). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- @WMC: One of the "reverts" was removing a see also link that was added 9 months ago. Another was removing a sentence added 2 months ago. Calling either of those "edit warring" is such a stretch that it makes the term meaningless. -Atmoz (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I in turn disagree with you, the key error is "each other". Reverting-each-other would be vital to deciding if there was edit warring; but exactly who you are reverting is irrelevant to determining 3RR violations. Unless these words were added recently, it is just simple editing - ah, that brings up pthe other question: since (by definition) all text was added by someone, in a very narrow view any removal of text is a revert. Quite how old the text has to be before it doesn't matter is a judgement call. I was assuming in my analysis that all the text being edited was new enough that a removal counted as a revert. Although I agree that your interpretion is possible, and could easily be used. This is, after all, part of the reason why calls for a mechanical interpretation of 3RR are resisted William M. Connolley (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I would disagree in this case case. The deletion of a word into two separate sections does not mean they are reverting each other. Unless these words were added recently, it is just simple editing. If the words they are removing were added recently, both editors would count as having made 1 revert, because no one else touched the section they were working in in the middle of their editing sequence. NW (Talk) 10:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The main problem with what you've written is that it is all framed in terms of the "I'm entitled to 3 reverts a day" idea. Which the 3RR page does its best to discourage, as do admins in general. But because people do think like that, and because people hate admins using their judgement when it gets themselves blocked, we need to have bright lines. So, yes: in your contrived example above, both sides have not "exhausted their revert limit" but they have both got themselves in a state when one more revert will potentially lead to a block. But more important would be the issue of whether the editors were actually edit warring or not William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- To NW. Although the present 1RR is much more clear now, some additional clarification is needed. Concretely, does in mean that any removal of any text from the stable version is a revert?
- My second question is if further changes (replacement of some phrase with the different one, replacement of three words with two different words etc) constitutes a revert?
- My third question regarding 1RR is as follows. Consider a situation when some unsourced, or poorly sourced statement is added into the article by the editor B. The editor A finds it not properly sourced and removes it. The editor B immediately reverts this change, so both of them have exhausted their revert limit. This creates a situation when the editor B achieved his goal (the questionable text is in the article), whereas the editor A has to take special efforts (create arguments, find sources, etc.) to remove this text. That comes into a direct contradiction with WP:BURDEN policy, and places good faith editors, who are trying to get rid of poorly sources and questionable content, in a situation when administrative sanctions can be applied to them at any moment. In other words, whereas this policy made the life of administrators easier, the good faith editors, who create a good quality content face unneeded problems. IMO, this situation need some additional clarification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for so wordy and ridiculous questions, but a situation develops in so counter-intuitive way that I simply have to ask them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is *now*. But it has only just been re-written :-)
- I believe that WP:1RR is actually clear and correct about this (it's a section of WP:Edit warring). A "one-revert rule" is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". Usually, people who break a 1RR are somewhat surprised, and will agree to self-revert. So I seldom find myself issuing blocks in those cases. Unfortunately this is one case where the person involved felt that other policies trumped WP:Edit warring. This is an argument which he is welcome to raise in policy forums, but has little persuasive value at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Mimi Macpherson
NW, given your very strong opinions about BLPs, I'd suggest that you not close AfDs or DrVs on them in the future. I don't believe 5% of the admin core would have closed that DrV that way. Admins really shouldn't be taking admin actions on stuff they have strong opinions about and I can't imagine you see yourself as not having strong opinions on BLPs. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you have erred in your closure, but will leave it there. The problem we now have is WP:GNG can you explain in light of your closure what constitutes notability on this person, what we have is 15 years of sustained and substancial media coverage in every media outlet in Australia, we have sourcing as a TV presenter in Australia for The Discovery Channel, She is a Radio presenter in Queensland as well as goto source(expert) for comments for national media outlets in relation to Whales conservation. Gnangarra 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you folks suggesting that admins not have opinions on anything (which I'm sure most admin candidates have when they were non-admins)? Or should admins not have brains when closing such discussions? –MuZemike 06:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Admins shouldnt close when they are actually expressing an opinion, but I dont care about the closure. I care about WP:GNG so far everyone thats closed discussions on this matter have been unable to answer what we are required to produce as sourcing beyond that which is expected for any other BLP. The subject meets notability more thoroughly than most people but its decided she isnt notable since NW made that decision on the balance of the discussion presented obviously NW has some idea about will be required to have the article. If NW cant define it how can we mere mortal editors do it? Gnangarra 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The ideal case is the uninvolved administrator. NW is highly involved in BLP issues and takes a very deletionist stance. Just as a Star Wars fan shouldn't be closing Star Wars AfDs leaning toward delete as keep, neither should someone with a strong opinion on BLPs close an AfD (or DrV in this case) against consensus. I think it's pretty obvious, but apparently it needed to be said.Hobit (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you folks suggesting that admins not have opinions on anything (which I'm sure most admin candidates have when they were non-admins)? Or should admins not have brains when closing such discussions? –MuZemike 06:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- This close is really very poor. The original reasons given for deletion had no basis in policy, and the arguments for endorsement of the close equally had no basis. To give weight to people who argue that Mimi Macpherson is not a notable person is to throw reality completely out of the window, and are you going to actually defend people who cited WP:BLP1E? As for "no longer a public person", she certainly was a public person as recently as last October, and what ever happened to "Notability is not temporary"? This sets a horrible precedent: anyone who isn't an A-lister who doesn't like well-publicised negative aspects of their life appearing in a Misplaced Pages article simply has to complain to Jimbo, and up will pop people arguing that 2+2=5 to get it deleted. Fences&Windows 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that Gnangarra and Fences&Windows are likely correct when they say that this person meets the notability guidelines. The AFD and DRV both arrived at a rough consensus that supported that opinion. That's all fine and dandy, but deletion guidelines clearly state that the subjects wishes may be taken into account, which I am not going to apologize for doing. Until Misplaced Pages gets a near-foolproof way for protecting BLPs, I am nearly always going to do so when making a decision. Does that make me biased? Maybe. But not so much that I am going to stop closing AFDs, especially because not a single one of mine has ever been overturned. I could be wrong, but I don't believe so. NW (Talk) 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- NW-don't let this get to you, good call. This thread is about sour grapes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- so little understanding for someone with such community trust. I'm trying to understand how the article of a notable Australian gets deleted and what it will take to move forward(re-create), the admin of the afd closurer said nothing except take it to DRV, WP:AWNB discussed the implications of the afd closurer -- you screamed canvassing(though there wsnt any) but I waited anyway and the DRV wasnt listed at AWNB. The DRV was closed as endorsing the closure I seek more detail, NW explained then you popup making an unnecessary comment, if your intent is to start a bush fire on the issue your going the right way about it. I suggest you go take a happy pill and do something productive and leave it to us experience editors to discuss this in a civilised manor. sorry NW for this response but after 5 years here the discussions about Mimi have generated the worse reactions by a crat I've ever seen Gnangarra 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have to add NW I wasn't too happy either. We could have used semi-protection indef or even full protection. Outright deletion is like hitting a thumbtack with a sledgehammer. Think about it, so where does influence stop? You do know many political parties of various countries watch and edit wikipedia don't you? So this sort of decision gives a tacit green light to all sorts of people on how information can be influenced by the subjects themselves and hence undermines the credibility of the 'pedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- There wouldn't happen to be an OTRS ticket I could read, is there? Depending on the wording of Ms. Macpherson's request and because the consensus really was leaning towards overturn to keep, I could be convinced to modify my closure to "restore but add on Reviewer FP and Semi Protection". NW (Talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that is a good approach. I don't recall seeing any discussion about an OTRS ticket as such, just that Jimbo had intervened after some communication with the subject. I think the best the best thing would be to ask Jimbo about the exact exchange. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I left a note on Jimbo's talk page here. NW (Talk) 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank-you NW, as I suggested in the afd I'd have no problem with a heavily oversighted restoration or even a fresh re-creation so as address BLP concerns. As Cas expressed the subject isnt the issue, the issue is the decisions and process outcomes that make it plausible to request deletion of all but a few 100 BLP articles on the similar grounds. I'll leave it here when you've had discussions with Jimbo give me a shout and I'll be happy to help if theres a need, also note I'm on the OTRS en-info queue as well. thanks Gnangarra 02:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I left a note on Jimbo's talk page here. NW (Talk) 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that is a good approach. I don't recall seeing any discussion about an OTRS ticket as such, just that Jimbo had intervened after some communication with the subject. I think the best the best thing would be to ask Jimbo about the exact exchange. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- There wouldn't happen to be an OTRS ticket I could read, is there? Depending on the wording of Ms. Macpherson's request and because the consensus really was leaning towards overturn to keep, I could be convinced to modify my closure to "restore but add on Reviewer FP and Semi Protection". NW (Talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have to add NW I wasn't too happy either. We could have used semi-protection indef or even full protection. Outright deletion is like hitting a thumbtack with a sledgehammer. Think about it, so where does influence stop? You do know many political parties of various countries watch and edit wikipedia don't you? So this sort of decision gives a tacit green light to all sorts of people on how information can be influenced by the subjects themselves and hence undermines the credibility of the 'pedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- so little understanding for someone with such community trust. I'm trying to understand how the article of a notable Australian gets deleted and what it will take to move forward(re-create), the admin of the afd closurer said nothing except take it to DRV, WP:AWNB discussed the implications of the afd closurer -- you screamed canvassing(though there wsnt any) but I waited anyway and the DRV wasnt listed at AWNB. The DRV was closed as endorsing the closure I seek more detail, NW explained then you popup making an unnecessary comment, if your intent is to start a bush fire on the issue your going the right way about it. I suggest you go take a happy pill and do something productive and leave it to us experience editors to discuss this in a civilised manor. sorry NW for this response but after 5 years here the discussions about Mimi have generated the worse reactions by a crat I've ever seen Gnangarra 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- NW-don't let this get to you, good call. This thread is about sour grapes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I had requested that we hold off on even having a DRV until I finish talking with the subject. Due to the time differences and her busy schedule and mine, that takes longer than one might hope, but there is no hurry on any of this. What I propose we do is hold another DRV (I will gladly initiate it) in a couple of weeks, likely for the purposes of bringing back the article, including some fresh sources - on paper - which will be (ideally) scanned and sent to OTRS.
- The biggest problem with this biography is the problem identified in the initial deletion request - she really isn't notable in and of herself, but only through being the sibling of someone famous. It is likely true that she meets some of our existing guidelines, but I think this only points to some failings in those guidelines, which haven't adequately contemplated cases of this nature.
- Arguments have been made that she's a "household name" in Australia - although without proof. But even if she is a household name, the fact remains that not very much is known about her other than a handful of negative tabloid-style events which would not, in and of themselves, even been covered in the press, save for her being the sister of Elle Macpherson. A DUI, a bankruptcy, an alleged sex tape on the Internet. If these things happened to most people, it would not be in the press, and correctly so - but in her case, the press attention was a mere side effect of her sister's fame.
- At the same time, Mimi is well aware that a google for her name gives pretty sad results. Nothing much about her is known, and the Internet is sadly mostly interested in the sex tape - so "slutload.com' (*sigh*) appears 2nd in the google results, while her own site appears 8th. She's sympathetic to the idea that if a *quality* biography of her, warts and all... but importantly "and all" - meaning genuine coverage of her entire life as opposed to the random collection of tabloid tidbits we had at the outset of this- could give a much better impression of who she really is.
- What I'd like for us to do is wait a couple of weeks until she's made up her mind and we've really thoroughly assessed the situation privately as to what might be possible here, and then hold another DRV *with her considered and well-advised opinion* taken into account. Notice that I don't say that it should absolutely rule the day, but that it is legitimate to take it into account, and that this is - per the DRV close - a borderline case where that seems incredibly relevant.
- I will forward my entire correspondence with her (after I get her permission, of course) to OTRS, so that others may review the situation as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Jimbo, this doesn't look negative nore non-notable, and neither does this which is about the family not just Elle, nore this, nor this or this, so I am not too impressed with a comment like that about lack of proof. She is on television from time to time here and would be recognised by plenty. Look, I didn't argue too strongly at the time as I do sort of agree that maybe some folks famous for just being famous we could do without, but we need some sort of algorithm - as things stand she veers too far into notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- nor this note the show as proof she's a "household name" in Australia and no mention of Elle. Gnangarra 13:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Somebody doesn't like you.
http://dis.4chan.org/read/vip/1103880078/104
- VIPPER 07:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pretty standard for, unfortunately. I had lots of fun in February and March over this issue. In fact, I'm surprised that the attacks have gone down so much recently. Thanks go to Shirik, who so kindly maintains the abuse filter. NW (Talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Rasputin's penis
This merger was not unilateral. There was a merge discussion right here, which was open for three whole months. I even listed it as a merge request in the Misplaced Pages namespace. I'm reverting your deletion of the redirect. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. I thought that the discussion was listed on Talk:Rasputin's penis, so I wondered why I could not see any such discussion. I shall leave it as is in that case. NW (Talk) 12:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks!! --Jtalledo (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Culture (US band)
I was about to punch this "keep" as it has been listed for 21 days with only the nom arguing for deletion but your second relist gave me pause because you could have closed it 7 days ago. The 2 "keep" !votes aren't that strong and the nominator does make a good case.
As a side note, lately I have been wondering if band articles should be given the same protection as BLPs as well as extra careful scrutiny at AFD. (ie relist a second time instead of a WP:NPASR close) Might be worth bringing up at WP:VPP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't want to punch a no consensus close out for that one (because I dislike NC closes and because I feel that with one or two more comments, consensus could be established). I really dislike this "don't relist twice rule", and have pretty much been ignoring it for everything, to be honest.
- And yeah, since band articles often focus on living people to a great extent, perhaps that would be a good idea. NW (Talk) 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You're out of date
I will not be around for most of June 2010 says your edit message. I bet you don't even read it any more William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I knew perfectly well that it was still up, thank you very much. I, um, was, um, waiting for someone to comment on it. Yeah, that's exactly it. NW (Talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What giveth?!?
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,
Seriously, what's wrong with this user (see here for contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/121.158.252.146)? "Saw" him removing and/or altering SPANISH NAMES tags (you can see them in many spanish persons articles at the top of the page, where it reads "This is a Spanish family name. The first name is X and the second is Y"); removing completely or altering to "This is a Catalan Spanish name" or "...Basque family name".
I sent him a polite message (here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:121.158.252.146), he waited a few months and...back to charge. I also noticed he writes, as so many around here, ZERO edit summaries, removing stuff just because. Do you think any "measure-taking" is possible?
Thank you very much as always, have a great weekend "and stuff" - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is possible that he missed your note somehow? I don't really think it is likely, but it is possible. Could you please leave him another note? If he acts disruptively after that one, then action can be taken. NW (Talk) 17:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just left you a message over at Commons
On your talk page there. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I replied there. NW (Talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.
Hi, I had just noticed all the vandalism and reversions done to my user page which, to be honest, I was quite surprised to see. Then I saw this from you. I have absolutely no problem with others making my user page better. Thank you and feel free to edit it. To be honest, most of my user page is done by another editor who wanted to work on coding more and he also didn't like the layout of my page. I let him lose on it. He did a wonderful job with the tables. I still have a lot of work to do on the prose and other things at the top but haven't gotten around to it yet. I like to let other editors know that I have limitations and serious COI issues in some areas which is why I posted the 'Preamble' section. Anyways, thank you, --CrohnieGal 23:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found your story very touching, and especially because of that, I was shocked that people could be so cruel. I know it's the internet, but still. :( Anyway, the edit wasn't a problem at all. Feel free to ask if you would like your page indefinitely semi-protected, which might be able to help with the vandalism. NW (Talk) 23:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think I'll take you up on it for my user page. Some of the vandalism I know who it is and she isn't going away even though she is community banned indefinitely. Yes people can be cruel on the net but it's really only hurtful to me when it happens in real life which it did. All my supposed friends disappeared as soon as I got sick. It's ok though, it just showed me that they weren't really friends afterall. Please, if it's not out of your way, would you put protection on my user page? I'm off to bed. Thank you again, --CrohnieGal 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- :( I wish I could say more. Oh, and page protected. NW (Talk) 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the protection. Don't feel bad, I think I understand what you are trying to say and it's much appreciated. :) --CrohnieGal 16:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- :( I wish I could say more. Oh, and page protected. NW (Talk) 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think I'll take you up on it for my user page. Some of the vandalism I know who it is and she isn't going away even though she is community banned indefinitely. Yes people can be cruel on the net but it's really only hurtful to me when it happens in real life which it did. All my supposed friends disappeared as soon as I got sick. It's ok though, it just showed me that they weren't really friends afterall. Please, if it's not out of your way, would you put protection on my user page? I'm off to bed. Thank you again, --CrohnieGal 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
daniel case
daniel case has new messages at my talk page 99.38.126.156 (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)