User talk:TFOWR/Archive 9

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 8	Archive 9	Archive 10

revdel-worthy?

Special:Contributions/66.69.210.3 might be worth looking at for BLP concerns. sonia♫ 08:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll ping ANI - I tend to think "... is openly gay" is OK (should be reverted if uncited, per BLP, etc, but not necessarily rev-del-able). I'll ping ANI and see what smarter folk think... TFOWR 08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Smarter folk than what I am have been consulted ;-) TFOWR 09:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure either... hence my consulting you! I've observed that my level of tolerance appears to be higher than the community in general, like the time I usernameblocked a user on simple and deemed the username non-revdel-worthy and it later got oversighted. Whilst I've learnt a lot about what comes under RD2 and 3 since then, I've still got a long way to go. So seeing what the admin body thinks is probably a good idea :) sonia♫ 09:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Rev del is also one of those "new" things, where the community as a whole is still finding its feet. There's a proposal at WP:AN#TIme for WP:RFRD? for a "rev del board" - I'm not convinced that's a good idea, but one positive aspect is that it would eventually help firm up what our limits are. I was a bit unsure about the edit to your talkpage that I rev-del-ed yesterday, but figured it was better to ask for forgiveness after the event than leave it in place, giving gratification to a vandal. So far no one's asked me to beg for forgiveness... TFOWR 09:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The matter can now be discussed here. HeyMid (contributions) 09:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

They're on a 24 hr holiday now! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests

Hi TFOWR, could you perform edit 1 and 2, on User:AzaToth/twinklefluff.js and User:AzaToth/twinklewarn.js, respectively? I have explained here, but never received a response. And HJ is in San Franscisco, I believe (like you said too). Thanks! HeyMid (contributions) 08:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, technical stuff! Slightly out of my comfort zone, editing stuff I don't really understand (and another editor's stuff too). I'll ping AzaToth (talk) and ask them to do it. TFOWR 09:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. HeyMid (contributions) 09:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, pinging AzaToth was exactly the same thing I did, but never received a response, so I am really curious to know whether this time will succeed or not. HeyMid (contributions) 09:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I wouldn't recommend edit2 - those are, obviously, the same template. But the edit summary and the reason for warning is different. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the information is misleading, as they may be good-faith edits, like unsourced material is not disruptive editing, see WP:RFD#September_4. HeyMid (contributions) 09:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a level 4 disruptive editing template, if you get to level 4 and they are adding unsourced data it is definitely disruptive :) I agree with you that it is not vandalism (as was agreed in the RFD you cite), but disruptive editing is different --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree: {{uw-error4}} and {{uw-unsourced4}} redirect there for a reason, if any issue needs escalating to a level 4 warning the user is being disruptive. If you disagree discuss it with the Wt:WikiProject user warnings people.
Regarding edit 1: Meh. A blocked editor shouldn't be surprised that he can't use Twinkle, but I don't care either way. Amalthea 09:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, then we have the following question: Has there ever been any cases were a constructive editor has received the uw-error4 and/or uw-unsourced4 warning? If so, you can't claim (s)he is a disruptive editor. HeyMid (contributions) 09:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the "warner" to make sure that the template Twinkle inserts is appropriate. Sometimes I do choose to drop a L3 warning on top of another one because the L4 one is not what I want to say. Of course, I do think Twinkle's descriptions should endeavour to not be misleading, because not all editors will check the templates before use (and those who do are often pipped at the post by those who don't.) sonia♫ 09:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What I really mean is that the {{uw-error3}} and {{uw-unsourced3}} likely already does the job on top of the L4 redirects. HeyMid (contributions) 10:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, the reasoning is that if a user keeps getting warnings so that it escalates to a level 4, the user is being disruptive. That's why those redirects exist (and are mentioned explicitly in WP:UTM#Multi-level templates). I agree that Twinkle could be more explicit, as Sonia says.
By the way, I do not appreciate that you neglect to mention the ongoing RfD you started for that redirect. Don't forum-shop to make the warning go out of practice; find a consensus in one place, and one place only. If it's deleted, I remove it. As long as the redirect is found proper it will be offered by Twinkle. Amalthea 10:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Amalthea: Yes, but a user can use Twinkle at their own user talk page to revert other's edits, while blocked (assuming that the blocked user has talk page access). HeyMid (contributions) 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But Twinkle continues to work there, right? Amalthea 10:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct. HeyMid (contributions) 10:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games

An IP 59.93.64.95 (talk · contribs) has dumped a lot of unsourced criticism on this article DIFF I have reverted twice per wp:verify, and warned twice for unreferenced additions. Regards, - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on them, and I've left them a note about WP:NPOV. Way too much editorialising, and unnecessary, too - the conclusions they reached are obvious just by sticking to the facts. TFOWR 09:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, by looking at the history a bit further back ≈04:44, 59.93.94.85 (talk · contribs) (very similar IP) was putting the same/similar material in and was reverted as copyvio from the BBC, DIFF

* If I revert another unreferenced section am I then at 3RR? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR means that you are not allowed to perform more than 2 reverts per page, per day (24 hours), or else you may be blocked for breaking the 3RR rule. However, if you perform 2 reverts on multiple pages during a short time frame (like 24 hours) or more than 2 reverts on the same page, but between a longer time frame than 24 hours, you'll get blocked for edit warring instead. However, those rules do not apply to vandalism, but do apply (mostly) to good-faith edits. HeyMid (contributions) 09:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say, if it's another obvious copyvio/vandalism it's okay. sonia♫ 09:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What if it's just an unreferenced block of text? (though I suspect it is a copvio too) 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If the IP is disruptive and blocked it should be fine. I doubt you will get called on it - so long as the addition is clearly unsourced or a looks a lot like a copyvio. 3RR means 3 reverts per 24 hours per article, but people are usually sane about these things :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So you mean I only break 3RR if I perform 4 reverts on the same page during a 24-hour time frame? If that's correct, I thought the rule was only 2 reverts per page. HeyMid (contributions) 09:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period" (you get an extra edit ;-) That said, admins can and will block below the 3RR limit: it's best to err on the side of caution if you're at all unsure. Do as 220.101 did, and check with someone - that way if anyone accuses 220.101 of edit warring they can refer the accuser back to this talkpage discussion. TFOWR 09:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The (obvious) reason as to why Wikipedia (at least the English one) has the 3RR rule, is to teach users to discuss the edits, rather than edit warring. They get their punishment if they break it, with a block. However, for probation terms, that number can be lower, like 1RR or 0RR, for example. HeyMid (contributions) 09:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 9999) Agreed. My personal preference is for WP:BRD - revert once, then discuss. But BRD is an essay, and 3RR is policy. I'll stick to BRD, but I have to accept that most editors won't. TFOWR 10:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Errant The other 2 IPs mentioned have added the lump of text (7k+) 3 times in about 4 hours, One I warned but they haven't been blocked.

@ Heymid, it depends on what you revert. If it's falsely saying someone is gay, for example, then I would imagine you can do it till they are blocked or stop? 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As per the policy, violations of BLP or veritable vandalism can be reverted until the cows come home, but there are better ways of protection than doing that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye. My only concern with protection would be that it would shut 220.101 out (probably a good time to mention this page... again...) but I've watchlisted the page and will keep an eye on it. Strange title... "Concerns and controversies over ..."? "Concerns" sounds... wrong. Not very encyclopaedic. "Controversies" sounds like a POV-magnet, but that's a discussion for another day. TFOWR 10:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably anonymous editors from cities who lost the bid to host the games getting all snippity :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India, could be. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, 3RR depends on whether the reverts are controversial or not (non-controversial ones are probably trolling, vandalism, obvious bad faith edits, unsourced claims, etc). HeyMid (contributions) 11:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

@220.101: I've seen several borderline edits to this article; you're probably better placed than me to assess their "badness". Don't feel that just because I'm not reverting/fixing you shouldn't... Not that I'm saying you might be holding back, I just thought I should let you know ;-) TFOWR 13:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Like this one ? [1] about a dog that... ! Facepalm - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey. "I saw another news report about how sucky India is, lets wedge that in somehow". I'm going to direct WP:NPOVN towards the article - more neutral eyes are needed, and yours and mine need help! TFOWR 13:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is referenced!! Woof! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN informed. 220.101, I have named and shamed you as a sole voice of reason - hope that's OK! (Let me know if you consider yourself insane or unreasonable, and I'll happily retract my claim ;-) TFOWR 13:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, don't know if you noticed, but the article - wonderful title and all - was created by Australian fighter (talk · contribs), who was (they're blocked) a sock of Polylepsis (talk · contribs) (who's banned). To many good faith editors have edited the article since then to justify deleting the article as a banned-user creation, but it does give some idea why the article has such an unwieldy name... TFOWR 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(OMG it's busy around here tonight!) Saw the post at NPOV, added my 2c, nice to know I am moving in such 'exalted' company! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got five things working against you:

• This is worldwide headline news at the moment. The diff that you cited above about dogs, for example, was citing The Times of India, datelined only a few hours ago. (It was also a word-for-word copy of the Times. This is a major problem, more on which in a moment, more important even than neutrality.)
• The headline news is not exactly positive.
• Most Wikipedians underestimate the size of the potential Indian editorship.
• Indian English. ☺ (I've seen Indian English erroneously tagged as "patent nonsense" before now.)
• The old let's-break-out-controversies/criticisms-into-a-standalone-article that'll-be-inherently-neutral no-worries problem.

I've often found that the best solution in "breaking news" articles is to lead by example (and point people in the direction of Wikinews). If someone dumps unsourced criticism into the article, find a source and rewrite as sourced criticism.

However, the repeated copyright violations are a concern. Don't build upon them and make derivative works. Zap them and write fresh content from scratch. Copyright violations are a no-no here. If there's someone repeatedly violating copyright, then getting an administrator involved, to take away editing privileges, is definitely the thing to do. 59.93.64.95 (talk · contribs), for example, isn't writing original prose at all, but is just dumping the content of an Agence France Presse article written by Adam Plowright ("Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.") into Wikipedia, twice. If xe does it again, I'm sure that TFOWR will be only too happy to take xyr editing privileges away. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Uncle G, definitely food for thought (I'm slightly ashamed that I've had concerns about Indian English in the past, whereas I'd cheerfully restore words like "outwith" or "pakeha" in Scottish English and New Zealand English articles...) From my perspective, and ignoring the standalone-article issue for now, this is a genuine issue, with my main news provider (the BBC) reporting on it heavily (and in largely unfavourable terms...) I think your advice to lead by example is spot on - though it would have been a daunting task before NPOVN drew in new and experienced editors. I've also been thinking too hard about neutrality, and not hard enough about copyvios - that's an interesting (and very, very necessary) approach. I'll start directing editors at WikiNews and explaining our copyvio policies. And yes, I will be more than happy to enforce copyright issues with blocks if necessary...! TFOWR 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When linking non-diff pages on-wiki

Hi, when you want to link to a non-diff page on-wiki (like this one), don't use the typical copy-paste URL method (like most other's do). Because you use the secure version, all non-secure users get redirected to the secure version, if they (including me) click on your link. Instead, please use the template/form [{{fullurl:Article/Project or talk page/Special page|variables (like diff=revision number and/or block=user, etc)}} optional link text]. This is an example of the form I wrote above. Otherwise, we may get fooled by the fact that we are not logged in at the secure version, and we probably don't want to edit un-inlogged and see our IPs get logged in the edit histories.

Also, why haven't you updated your online status for a great while? HeyMid (contributions) 10:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Discussed this earlier on a different talkpage. In the past, I've tended to use {{oldid}} instead of fullurl, and it looks like {{oldid2}} may be even quicker and easier. Probably going to take me a while to remember, I'm so used to just using ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C to get the URL. Of course, the real solution is for everyone else to use the secure server... ;-) Before that happens, though, I might write a userscript that grabs the oldid/diff and dumps them into a string, either in the PC's copy/paste buffer or onto a new Wikipedia page, ready for pasting into wherever I need it.

I had to rebuild my PC recently. I used to have this lovely widget that, when I changed my online status, it would change my Wikipedia status for me as well as changing my status on other stuff (IM, etc). When I reinstalled the OS I couldn't remember where I'd got the widget from, and I'm too lazy to manually update my status - I say "manually", what I really mean is click the handy links at the top of every Wikipedia page, as I've got Xeno's status changer script installed. One of these days I'll write my own status changer for my OS... TFOWR 11:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one thing that occurs to me is... raw URLs can be clicked in a diff; templated URLs ({{diff}} etc) can't. Probably not a big deal, but it means you need to scroll down to the post to click links. TFOWR 11:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I used the secure server(s) for months, but went back to the normal servers, because the secure one(s) are in my experience unstable; sometimes I am even unable to connect, so I use the normal ones, instead. The secure servers are also (understandably) slower than the normal ones. HeyMid (contributions) 11:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, where did/do you find the batch scripts for TW, for PPs, etc? HeyMid (contributions) 11:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a couple of recent incidents that made me change over, where a long-term editor had their account cracked by an external advocacy group who then posted some really unpleasant things while pretending to be this editor. My password has always been pretty strong (mix of numbers, letters and characters instead of words), but the incident prompted me to change my password, to remember to change my password more often, and to switch to the secure server. If someone did crack my account, they'd have access to admin tools, so I'd prefer to be as cautious as possible - the community granted me the mop, not some random cracker ;-) The batch scripts "just appeared" when I got the mop - I had Twinkle installed beforehand, so I assume they're part of Twinkle, but don't show up until you get the mop. TFOWR 11:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I believe that if you use "<span class="plainlinks">" before the link, like in this one, the padlock in the link will not be shown. Also, the {{diff2}} template should not be used for imported edits (such as the old ones dated back in 2001), otherwise you get unexpected results, as the diff2 template relies on the prev variable.

Also, do you know the name of the hacked user's account? And why do you write "they"? Is it a more common and/or neutral writing? HeyMid (contributions) 11:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a template: {{Plain link}} that avoids the need for "<span class="plainlinks">...</span>" ;-)

The editor was Weaponbb7 (talk). There was another incident, I forget the editor's name, where a post was altered, then an image of the altered post was placed online. Not quite the same, but related to the same off-wiki advocacy group.

I use "they" as it's gender-neutral, other editors do this too, but in my case it's due to my political views: I regard gender as irrelevant. Not that long ago there were two words for "you" in the English language: "thee" and "thou". "Thee" would be used for someone who was socially equal or in a lower social class. "Thou" would be used for someone who was "better". We've done away with that, and I'd like to think that one day we'll stop discriminating between people on the basis of their gender - men and women will be truly equal. I will use gender-specific pronouns if people ask me to - I don't want to needlessly offend people - but until I'm asked to do differently, I'll use gender-neutral pronouns. Hope that helps! TFOWR 12:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Details - This is the new account of the hacked user, User:ResidentAnthropologist, see the amusing sock template he has added, and the user that had his post altered was User:Scott MacDonald who sadly retired. Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That sock puppet tag is genius. What was Scott's old username? I was thinking Doc Glasgow (talk), but having checked I'm very, very unconvinced... TFOWR 12:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Scott was previously User:Troikoalogo - a skit on this, the trioka-logo Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha! But before that, he was Doc glasgow. (Small "g": Doc glasgow (talk). I knew somehow there was a mop involved... TFOWR 12:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah interesting, an admin for five years, no wonder he needed a break. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like he has been enticed back hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Should I alert you of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pagemoney. You reverted vandalism of a suspected sock. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No need, I saw their edit to your talkpage and started keeping an eye on them. Looking into it with WP:DUCK in mind... TFOWR 12:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I'm a bit new with SPI, would you be able to close the SPI (however you do that) if you sorted out the socks? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also no SPI-expert (despite past attempts to pretend otherwise...) I'm reading up on SPI stuff still, so I'll leave it to the regulars to do what needs done. TFOWR 12:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...but Syrthiss (talk) beat me to it :-( Obvious sock obviously blocked... TFOWR 12:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

tee hee! Syrthiss (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE Closures: Geevor Tin Mine

Hi, in relation to the closure of Geevor Tin Mine, I believe it is more correct to note the the relevant guideline relating to Cornwall is WP:CornwallGuideline. Article has already been changed in line with this by a topic expert. This may also help on future articles involving Cornwall? --HighKing (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In general terms I think you're right; however, in terms of WT:BISE I believe it falls outside our remit. If this had been, say, Devon instead of Cornwall then "England", "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" would all have been better than "British Isles" - I simply applied the same logic. (Obviously, I think these alternatives ("England", etc) can be placed relatively - I see "Cornwall"/"Devon" as X units, so I'd prefer Y to Z - but the crucial thing for us is that it's not a WT:BISE issue, it's an issue for the individual talkpage). TFOWR 12:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just thought it was worth pointing out that an "uninvolved" editor had already changed the article (after he saw the BISE template) and logged WP:CORNWALL as the reason. If there's any other articles overlapping BISE/Cornwall, it might be worth bouncing to the Cornwall folk first. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. DuncanHill has a point about WikiProjects (in general, not just Cornwall) - it's probably worth pinging any listed on the talkpage as a matter of course. Yet another task to remember each time...! TFOWR 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pics

May you see what is wrong with this picture? I don't know how to meet the expectation of the admins, I'm the one who take this picture but I don't know how to put my license. Can you just fix it for me? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:El-Farah_el-Masri_El-2adeem.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capolinho (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm really no expert when it comes to images in general, and images at commons in particular. I've asked for help on the image's talkpage (where I see you'd also posted a question). I think, though, that you'll need to confirm the picture's details at "OTRS" - an Online Ticket Request System that Commons uses (Wikipedia also uses it) to track copyright permissions and other issues. Hope that helps! If you're still having problems, I'll try and track down a Commons administrator whos hould be able to help. It's also possible that one of my "talkpage stalkers" may have experience with Commons, and be able to help out. TFOWR 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The picture doesn't exist or has been deleted. Do you own the copyright to the picture? Do you have the original digital image? Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

commons:File talk:El-Farah el-Masri El-2adeem.jpg - talk page is still there, and a Commons admin (Martin H. (talk · contribs)) is discussing it. TFOWR 10:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

recall

Hi TFOWR, I know you have some interest in the Admin recall process and I have created this page User:Off2riorob/Admin recall discussion to slowly develop and get ideas and feedback towards a set of acceptable guidelines to define what it actually is, there is no hurry, no worry, just feel free to add any thoughts you may feel to contribute, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted, and I'll post some thoughts on the talkpage later. It does occur to me, though, that it's probably wider than just recall - it covers tool restrictions and returning admins, too. Not a big deal, but you might consider renaming at some point. It also occurs to me that I promised the late, lamented Jack forbes that I'd take regular admin breaks... I'm almost certainly overdue for one, though I did take a break of sorts fairly recently... TFOWR 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, tool restrictions and determinate lengths of mop granting are indeed not part of the recall issue. Feel free to rename at will. Required Admin breaks would be imo, if an Admin agreed to recall he would be required to take the tool breaks and edit as a simple user ... I am of the idea of one week in four, also stops Admins becoming overly involved in one issue and would help users targeting one admin as their personal assistant, such associations become restricted by the natural involvement created over a period of time. As I see the objective of the recall and the possible sections of tool restrictions if an Admin is having issues in a particular area is to allow the community to more easily accept some flaws in a candidate in the knowledge that his being given the mop is not forever, in some areas of work we are in need of a bunch more Admins. Copyright violations is one of those areas. Just some thoughts for discussion, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is an interesting are with respect to your discussion: an editor doesn't necessarily have to be an admin to be really, really useful: VernoWhitney (talk · contribs) is a case in point (though I'd add that I'd support VernoWhitney in a nano-second if they had an RfA...) "Forcing" Moonriddengirl (as an example) to have one week's admin holiday in every four wouldn't necessarily hinder that much the awesome work she does with copyright. (And if there's any admin who deserves a holiday, it's MRG - is there anyone more awesome?) TFOWR 11:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking you owe a nomination..and I agree with you about VW .. and and we should create a barnstar of most awesomeness one for Moon. I could talk some more but I will add some thoughts later to the discussion page. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Minutes after your post someone gave MRG a barnstar ;-) I don't know VW at all, except from spying on them: I've never interacted. Wouldn't stop me nomming or co-nomming, but it does make me... shy about approaching them ;-) VW or MRG: if you see this, bear it in mind. Other watchers: likewise: if the opportunity ever arises, mention it to VW.

This Fool Offered Warious Responses. You've prob'ly seen them already, but if not... TFOWR 18:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice one .. I had a quick look as real life is screaming at me, and will expand over the weekend, fuck, I am in real life demand and I am not used to that these days. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Hi. Could you have a look at recent edits to Talk:Itinerant. It's not a well patrolled page and a small number of IPs seem to be able to ride roughshod, without the normal courtesies. If I'm being 'over-sensitive' just let me know, but I've removed what I consider unacceptable remarks only to see them re-applied. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realise you were so popular. I've no intent on adding to your workload on a relatively minor issue. Any outside opinion welcome in lieu. RashersTierney (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to get to this - I was offline yesterday evening. I've removed the personal attack and warned the IP who made it/restored it. I've watchlisted the article, so I should see any repeats, but ping me if I miss anything. TFOWR 09:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP has read the warning. Their edit summary doesn't inspire confidence, but I'll keep an eye on this for a wee while. TFOWR 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat?

Resolved

This is probably borderline, but does this (and maybe also this) seem like a legal threat to you? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they retracted it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP is obviously a sock, but of who? Is this the M.O. of the banned user "Brucejenner"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they're a sock (despite the fact that they claimed to have been personally attacked a few days ago having only edited today: they probably have a dynamic IP, after all). They seem to have little grasp of policy, and are apparently unfamiliar with wikipedia in general. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The tipoff is the "You again?" message he posted, directed at me. Not that it matters. If he screws around with the article, he can be stopped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi TFOWR, I was wondering if you could move Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for page protection since that's the correct location for the editnotice. Cheers, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:55pm • 07:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks OK to me - try editing RFPP's edit notice and you'll see the first edit notice. TFOWR 08:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, hmm it seems while I was gone for a while my brother decided to deface my talk page with threats. I have removed them. Would you mind blocking the IP address? Cheers, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:56pm • 08:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

YGM ;-)DocOfSoc (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you've got mail! I'm currently half-asleep and very un-informed. Will work on that, and possibly "YGMM" (you'll get more mail) ;-) TFOWR 09:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Have your coffee (tea?) and relax! Much better now. YGM again too! ;-)

Outing and personal attack

I thought I'd draw your attention to this on FridaeDoom's talk page, which probably needs revdelling (since it mentions his real name) and the IP blocking. Sorry to keep bothering you with this stuff. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, just pointing out that his name, age (within a year's accuracy from his grade at school) and photograph are all on his userpage. sonia♫ 09:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Just woke up, sorry TFOWR and friendly talk page stalkers. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's alright thanks for looking out for me and a good morning to you Giftiger :) My brother also seems to have posted on User talk:Thesevenseas claiming that I'm gay... I'll remove that now. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:34pm • 09:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm I can't seem to edit Meta for some reason... is my IP globally blocked now? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:53pm • 09:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just that you're gay (according to your brother) :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waking up (late night last night), apologies for being slow. The IP isn't blocked (edit: the IP isn't blocked locally on en.wiki. It is blocked globally, however). I don't know how to check meta stuff, but I'll look into it. Back soon... TFOWR 09:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

124.179.40.91 is blocked on meta (and globally, for that matter). TFOWR 10:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks TFOWR, I was just doing some household cleaning. Thanks and regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:07pm • 11:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games Yada Yada et. al.

Sherenk (talk · contribs) has a little problem with copyright and was apparently blocked recently for just the sort of thing that you deleted from the article @ 11:27 (UTC). They've been warned for that too. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See here ;-) TFOWR 11:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I might as well not bother, my s-l-o-w typing and net connection mean I'm often 2 steps behind you guys. I might go back to editing Malcolm Douglas (documentary maker) who died today. He was hunting crocs while Steve Irwin was still in nappies. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, keep bothering - please! My typing (2 fingers on a good day...) is slow, too, and although my connection is fast (very fast, if I'm honest - I've experienced slow very recently, and I now recognise "very fast" when I see it!) my time is limited. I'm quite snowed under right now: WT:BISE is... interesting, I'm trying to kick off a project I've been promising for a while (looking into a couple of possibly problematic editors I encountered ages ago, and have been promising another editor I'd do this for ages) and I have a vague plan to try and come up with 1500 words on a Congolese film director I know nothing about...! So any help you can provide is very, very welcome. Anyway, I've already "volunteered" you at NPOVN, so there! TFOWR 12:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, MRG is keeping an eye on this issue. TFOWR 12:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A Canadian republican at BISE

FWIW, I'm not irked by TR's informing others of my political stance within Canada. It's already a poorly kept secret. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: TR fogot to mention that I was an athiest. Therefore, the God Save the Queen thing, annoys be in two ways (hehehe). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair enough. It was off-topic, however, and my concern was (and is) that if I'd allowed it to stand it would open the floodgates for further off-topic musings, opinions and personal views. Bwilkins made a good point with the most recent topic vio: give an inch, and TR will become a ruler. If I'd let TR comment on your nationality or views on monarchy, the next step would be TR commenting on perceived Irish or Welsh nationalism, or speculating about editors' nationalities, etc. I'm trying to reinforce the idea - not just to TR but to everyone - that everything boils down to arguments backed with policy or precedent. I don't care if Editor X (talk · contribs) is a card-carrying member of the "British Empire (including Ireland and the treasonous American colonies) Party" or the "Nuke Britain - Payback for the Potato Famine Party" - if their arguments are sound, we should respect that. TFOWR 15:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Odokee

I saw that you finally closed the Odokee discussion (and I realize that you must still be setting everything up for that), but if I may have a moment of your time, would it still be improper if I were to undo this edit considering the outcome?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd counsel against it. My advice would be to avoid any appearance of edit warring, so discussion on the talkpage would be my recommendation. TFOWR 18:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the last discussions on the talk page was where someone could find an illegal download of the game. I don't think it will be of any use to bother with a thread that will not be responded to. I want to remove the wrong information and replace it with the correct information, but now I cannot do this because it will be seen as edit warring as you suggest. On any other page, this would not be a problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think the talkpage won't elicit responses, what about an RFC? It's maybe not quite appropriate, since it's a dispute involving exactly one editor (!) but might be a good way to proceed and get outside input. I presume there are no obvious WikiProjects that could provide input? TFOWR 20:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, had a rethink. Leave this with me, I'm tied up for the next few hours but I'll post at ANI. TFOWR 21:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you're thinking too, when you get a chance to talk about it. I think its fair to say that I'm not involved.--*Kat* (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nothing exciting - in fact, that's basically it: I'll post at ANI ;-) Ryulong isn't edit warring, they've asked me for my advice, my advice is... limited, so I'll look to ANI for guidance. TFOWR 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The pronoun you are looking for is "he".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll use gender-specific pronouns if you'd prefer (indeed, if any editor requests it) but in general I use gender-neutral pronouns. Thanks for nudging me, I'd got caught up in some unpleasantness elsewhere and haven't pinged ANI yet. I'll do that now. TFOWR 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ryūlóng, there's not been any opposition to the revert at ANI. I'd say go ahead and do it - if there's any fallout you can blame me. TFOWR 15:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it turns out that the name in Japan is entirely parsed in English, so it kind of renders things moot unless I add the Katakana reading of it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you take of this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it the edit summary that's the problem? (I'm asking because I'm unsure what it means - I could guess, but I could be very wrong...)

From the perspective of the editing ban, I'm OK with it - I limited the scope of the ban to articles and article talkpages, and removing posts wouldn't fall under that or fall foul or WP:OWNTALK. Assuming that the edit summary is ... dismissive, then I'd be a little concerned, but not unduly: I'd put that into the category of "venting while restricted". Without understanding the edit summary, however, my take on it is necessarily limited. TFOWR 08:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

He said "remove retarded crap" in a dismissive way by using faux hepburn romanization.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's not nice. I don't feel it falls under the ban imposed at ANI, however. You could take it to WP:WQA - it's arguably an attack on the editors who posted the messages being removed - but I'd be inclined to try and ignore it. TFOWR 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Blog posting: paging talkpage stalkers! WP:ENGVAR at WP:VPR

Many of this page's stalkers speak interesting varieties of English - Australian English, Canadian English, Kiwi English etc. I flit between Scottish English and Kiwi English as the fancy takes me, and could possibly blag my way with Singapore English, lah. Up 'til now I've been in favour of WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN, and I've argued for "outwith" to be kept at Scottish articles, while retaining US spelling in US topics etc.

There's an interesting discussion about WP:ENGVAR at The Village Pump (Proposals). The proposal, which is a perennial favourite (or "favorite"!), is to adopt American English through the project. Now... before you all head off to register your disapproval, I'll warn you that I have not argued against it. I've referenced another project with a quite different policy to ENGVAR, and suggested that standardising on American English may actually be A Good Thing™. I've also suggested a technical solution, which may or may not be such a good thing.

I suspect that the Village Pump proposal will be shot down in flames sooner rather than later. I'd be interested, however, in hearing your thoughts on this. ENGVAR: good or bad? Should we accommodate those wacky Scots, with their "outwiths", and those crazy Aussies who can't make up their minds how to spell "labour"? Would my technical solution (a template) be workable? Is this all a drop in the ocean, compared to more serious issues like article improvement? TFOWR 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow interesting. My English is rather confused, having been exposed heavily to both British/Australian/Kiwi/Malaysian etc. and American/Filipino etc. I personally divide english into those two groups as the differences within those groups is minor and in my opinion usually an issue of vocabulary (Of course, I have no idea where GoodDay falls). I would object to US english for personal reasons, so probably best not to get into that argument. I don't think this will get very far, a lot of the other language wikis have different wikis because they consider themselves different (eg. Croatian and Serbian), when in reality they are quite similar. English doesn't have this. I think ENGVAR is probably the most feasible solution bar multiple wikis or having two copies of each page which someone can flick between using buttons somewhere on the wiki. If that was done, it would probably only include 2 (or at most 3) variations, and so I'm sure some from more 'minor' english variations would be miffed. I wouldn't mind a scots wiki though, for the novelty ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting of course that the scots wiki must be translatable into "normal" english ;) It takes a looong time to read articles one the scots wiki right now! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I can barely contribute in British English as it is ;) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Outwith Labor? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a job, many years ago, in a big corporate place. It was a multinational, but the office was in Scotland. There was a badly-spelled notice by the water-cooler, something about when you could and couldn't use the coffee machine or something. And the final line was... "out with office hours". I always used to smile when I saw it... I never plucked up the courage to cover up the top bit of the notice with something else, so the whole poster would read: "Work is a four-letter word! Out with office hours!" ;-) TFOWR 20:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ye be outwith editing hours, time fer some sack time laddy! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Had to stay up waiting for off-wiki stuff to happen. That excuse has gone, now, so I 'spose it's time to sign off! Thanks for the nudge! TFOWR 01:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

barnstar!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I award you this star for helping restore all those templates and articles accidently mass protected by HJ and for doing the right thing Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I kind of feel I earned this one, but Twinkle deserves some credit as well. Once HJ had pointed me at "p-batch" it became very, very easy. (I also think HJ deserves more credit than debit here: it was a good-faith move, that may yet become our preferred option). Anyway - thanks! I'm away off to add it to my "trophy cabinet"! TFOWR 16:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ban question

I am currently on a complete interaction restriction with and about a user who is currently banned altogether. I would like to know how, or if, I can get this interaction ban on me rescinded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So... the other user isn't on-wiki at all anymore? It seems slightly pointless there being an interaction ban. Honestly, I don't know what the answer is. Possibly WP:AN? That would seem the logical place for bans etc to be set, reset and unset. If you're concerned about discussing the other user, email me, and I'll raise it at WP:AN. TFOWR 09:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be sending you an e-mail shortly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I didn't recall they were initially talking about only a temporary ban. In any case, I have faithfully kept hands-off, and whatever they decide, they decide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate Xeno taking the time to comment, but I'd like more comments - I take the view that as an established editor you have a right to a proper resolution one way or the other: "no, keep the ban" would be a better result than "meh, no comment, no consensus." I'll ping-bump AN later... TFOWR 08:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw the proposed alternatives on AN, and I would be fine with those ideas. I don't need the entire ban lifted, just the handcuffs taken off so I can provide observational evidence if the need arises. The direct interaction ban can stay in place, as I've got no reason to post on his talk page or to go after him in ANI. As I found by watching from the sidelines, there was no shortage of editors willing to speak up, and there was nothing new I could have added to those discussions even if I weren't under restriction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think something could be hammered out by whoever closes it that addresses Atmoz' concerns, too... though I suspect that that problem is maybe a little too optimistic about COM's return to editing. Pity - I actually worked with COM once and found them to be a good editor in many ways. There's something about this place that turns people into bad socks ;-) TFOWR 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am hopeful that my latest comments there will speak to Atmoz's ideas. Consensus seems to be to just loosen the belt a little bit, and that's all I really want. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied

[2]. Didn't mean to come off as a personal insult, but I am furious.—Kww(talk) 01:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, but you probably want to move the entire comment to where you !vote. It's your personal view, not a response to me, my !vote, or my actions. TFOWR 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a personal response to your !vote. I was surprised to see you endorse such things, and think you should reconsider.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I endorsed nothing. I !voted based on what I felt was the best thing to do with pending changes right now. I made no promise in the past, and entered into no contract. I don't consider myself bound by statements made by others back in the day, and I think it's a poor basis for making technical decisions. I do think whoever made that promise was unwise, and I do think that as a community we all screwed up by failing to think through properly what we were going to do at the end of the trial, and that as a result the discussion/analysis/poll was a farce, but the argument that we have to make a technical decision based on a belief that a promise was broken - that's way too WP:BUROcratic for me. TFOWR 01:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Begoon

Apologies for butting in on this one, but it's not only opposed because a promise was broken, I opposed because, with the anger and frustration quite evident over the whole fiasco, I fear for the long term implications on trust and support for PC. I am strongly in support of PC yet I don't feel the long term distrust and anger caused from being seen by a large number of people to be abandoning procedure to push through a very short term unimportant goal is worth it. I also feel that having a pause between trials is the right way to do it, and certainly here where there are many valid speed and usability issues to be addressed, along with policy and process points related to it's use. I've pontificated at far too much length on the poll talk page if you're interested (not that there is any reason you should be) - but what it basically comes down too is a couple of things - unnecessarily pissing a huge number of people off over this will come back to bite you in the long run, and there is no reason not to do all this properly, other than arbitrary, self imposed deadlines  Begoon&#149;talk 17:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Butt-in anytime ;-) I hinted at it above, but I think the whole process has been handled badly by us, as a community. We should have had a plan in place - prior to starting the trial - for measuring results. We should have had a plan for analysing results, post-trial, and we should have had plan for discussing the results and deciding how to proceed. The editors who came up with the straw poll came in for a lot of flak (and the straw poll was hideous...) but they at least made an effort. The rest of us sat and waited for someone else to do something.

This lack of planning was bad, obviously, and it meant what was always going to be acrimonious was more heated than it could have been. We spent as much arguing over the poll as we did over the trial. Actually, before I get on to the poll - the end of the trial! There was no heads-up that the trial was ending, it was a word-of-mouth thing. I caught that the trial had ended, and stopped using PC, but I'm fairly certain there were folk still applying PC1 after the trial ended. I didn't know what to do - at one point I was removing PC1 from pages I'd protected, then I stopped, then I started - no one really seemed to know where to go. Anyway... the straw poll. For various reasons, I hate voting - discussion is king. I'd have liked to have seen an RfC-style approach, but as I did nothing to promote that approach, I can't really complain. So... the straw poll dragged on, and no one was willing to close it - I suspect because admins could by this point be divided into two groups: involved, or befuddled ;-) Meanwhile, the myth took hold that the trial hadn't ended. We'd all stopped applying PC1, in many cases we'd removed it already from protected pages (and many of us only applied it for short-periods anyway). By now, it was obvious that the straw poll wasn't going to get closed. New polls started, debating what to do next. I !voted in a few of the early ones. But after the 20th or so poll started even I'd lost interest - it had become a war of attrition - which side will have the most supporters left awake when the rest of us have died of boredom! So Jimbo stepped in. That's always a good way to piss off someone... but it was probably very necessary. I think maybe he should have just said sod it - let's remove PC from anything that's still protected, and there'll be a fresh trial when the community gets its act together. As it is, he decided on yet another poll. We decided on questions - "keep"/"close" until November. Now... here's where I need to justify myself. To my mind, this is purely a technical question. It's a decision to turn off PC for a few months, or to keep it on. It's not a political question. But obviously, it was a great opportunity to make political points (I can't complain too much about that, either - I've been pimping PC at RFPP for ages...) So, I !voted purely on the question: keep until November. Come November I'll reassess once I've seen the new version. Now, I realise that elements within the community feel let down. Some felt that PC was bad from the get-go, and others felt that the straw poll fiasco was bad, and others felt that Jimbo's poll was trying to pull a fast one. But at the end of the day I'm not prepared to take political considerations into it. I suppose pissing people off is a consideration right now, but to be honest I think people were going to be pissed off whatever happened (and probably will continue to be pissed off whatever happens). We'll survive.

Prior to November we really need to learn from all this. Promises are a bad idea - consensus changes. Failing to plan is a bad idea - it's planning to fail ;-) We need to sort out what we're measuring, how we measure it, how we report it, how we discuss it, and how we decide what to do with it. And we need to do this before the next trial.

Blimey, that's an essay - sorry. I've been thinking about this a lot, and not saying much because it gets lost in all the other stuff going on. And because it's an attack on a lot of people - all of us, myself included - and people hate to be attacked. But I've wanted to say it, and now I've said it! I'm going to try and forget about pending changes now - at least for a few months ;-) TFOWR 18:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's worthy of an outdent if ever anything was... Well, I agree with pretty much all of that. The only place I differ is that I believe now would be the best time to shut it down and get it back on track, and it's not purely a technical question. We both know a bot could do the work required fairly easily, and at some point it needs to get back on the "discuss and define trial, approve trial, have trial, analyse and discuss results of trial, implement feature or return to go" cycle, and since it would restore a good deal of faith and trust to do that, and it needs to be done, I can see no time like the present. I see no plans to discuss the new trial, or its parameters, and my fear is that unless we have distinct decision points the whole thing just lurches on until it ends up being implemented regardless. If that was always going to be the case, then just implement it without attempting to gain consensus, and put an end to the "official" discussion. Even this is an improvement over what we have now, though it would still disappoint many, including me. If not,and we really want to do it properly, then draw a line in the sand, and put it back on track right now. This is just my opinion, based on experience with large software rollouts in previous lives. There's a discussion I recommend anyone interested in this looks at, here...  Begoon&#149;talk 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'd even need a bot - if we had lists un-protection and semi-protection would be easy. The problem would be generating the lists - when I was un-PC1-ing stuff I had to make a judgement call on whether to un- or semi-. But even that's not insurmountable, to be fair. I do take your point about a "close" forcing the issue - it's going to be tough enough persuading folk that we do, really, need to start planning ahead. This will sharpen the mind... On balance, though, I think it's going to be tough either way - and with "keep" we at least keep pages protected, but editable. Incidentally, that's one argument I just don't understand - I'm keen on PC because it allows IPs to edit, but the argument seems to be that we're making the project more exclusive... Also incidentally - I'm really not sure about November. We start a new trial just before the holiday season? Most of the English-speaking world shuts down for a month! But I digress... TFOWR 19:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument about more/less exclusive is a difficult one. If we overall end up with more articles protected with PC and semi, then it's true in a way, because there are more articles where an IP won't immediately see his edit (and as an aside, as the trial has progressed, the longest time to approve seems to have gradually moved out from 1 hour to sometimes as high as 4 - which is significant) - if we end up with PC truly only used as a more accessible option on articles that would otherwise be semi, then obviously it can't be true. Of more concern to me is the growing push for use in BLPs. When you take a BLP "down" from semi to PC, you are actually making libellous edits visible to a large group of Reviewers and other users for the time it takes someone to review - that is a concern, imo. Also, given that with < 2000 articles PC'd the time for review has stretched as it has, where is the study on what happens when we make that 5,000, 20,000 articles? Or will we just try it to see whether the whole thing explodes? Sorry to say it, but these are all more reasons to stop and at least try to get some idea whether, as we hurtle rapidly round the next blind bend, there is actually a sodding great truck parked sideways in our path. Personally, I think it's worth stopping to have a look first.  Begoon&#149;talk 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Another issue related to exclusivity is protection-duration: I'm confident that the community will set policy in place limiting PC1's general use except where we'd previously have used semi, but I also have to acknowledge that I PC1'ed pages for longer than I'd semi them.

I'm not sure I agree about the BLPvio-visibility issue - right now a BLPvio is visible until it's reverted, with PC1 it'll be semi-visible until it's reverted. I don't see the time-to-revert being affected: even if time-to-revert increases to a hideous amount we're still better off. I recognise the legal concerns about allowing folk to see stuff, but there's already a feeling that it's OK for admins to see deleted contribs - I suspect legally we'd be OK limiting visibility of BLPvios to reviewers - so long as the group != all readers the WMF can argue it's being diligent. I do agree about the number, however, and I'm unconvinced that PC will work on every BLP - we already know it won't work on US presidents, for example... With the best will in the world, I can't see anything other that semi+ working on high-traffic pages. My preference for PC remains low-traffic, low-watchlisted pages. It's those articles about obscure poets that concern me - no one cares enough to watchlist them, and vandalism and BLPvios sit in them for months. Having these articles appear on the "to be reviewed" list is, to my mind, a positive - even if reviewing doesn't happen immediately.

I wasn't convinced by the Bugzilla reports that the speed issues had been resolved. I saw huge articles without PC open far faster than small PC'd articles. The argument went that it was a diff issue, but I always - I assume most of us always - open diffs. We work from our watchlists! That issue never seemed to really go away, and I wonder if the "diff cache" was affected by an increasing number of PC'd pages...? TFOWR 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was actually considering the stepping down of a BLP from semi to PC, but you're right, that's probably an unlikely scenario, so I shall cease to be as concerned as I was :-) I stand corrected, in that use on little edited BLP's does seem like a valid extension. Yes, I generally just open a diff from my watchlist, after viewing the history via pop-ups to see if I need to consider more than one diff. The speed issues are absolutely not resolved. As a web designer I'd be viewing that as a primary concern. Any opinion that tells you they are resolved is, frankly, bollocks. Another problem is that few people seem to know what to do with multiple edits in a PC queue. That's not their fault - the interface needs to guide them. I can't count the number of times I've approved an edit by another reviewer who didn't know they needed to do so - many of them admins - that's a big problem, clunky UI with no proper instructions. I also entirely agree that for high traffic pages it shouldn't generally ever be an option. Sorry to post these points in seemingly random order - way past bedtime. If I wasn't so strongly in favour of PC done properly it would be a lot easier. I could just type SHUTITDOWN @1!#!!111 and leave it at that. As it is I have the added problem of continually having to explain that is not my position at all. I want it to work, but work right.  Begoon&#149;talk 20:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with complex stuff like this - it's easier to communicate via stream-of-consciousness, even if it's far harder to follow ;-) I'll let you get off. TFOWR 08:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Quack

Does this edit look familiar? Not sure if this is quacky enough to warrant blocking, but it certainly looks like Engr.Makhdoom (talk · contribs) and Engr.Iqbal (talk · contribs) again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Amjad Mehboob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'll keep an eye on them. Not enough for me to feel comfortable with a duck-block, yet, but I have to agree it's got my socky-senses tingling... TFOWR 19:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No activity since. I wonder if (a) it is the same user, and (b) the message is (finally) sinking in? TFOWR 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An IP did make the same edit shortly afterwards, so that may be wishful thinking. We can probably expect to see yet another account soon. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Many thanks, sometimes I feel like a bull in a china shop on en.wiki ^^ --Vituzzu (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I've not really done anything yet! However... I do see that both Alpha30's and the IP's edits at Biancavilla have been deleted as "blatant copyright violations". I'm still looking into this, but I am very concerned about "both" editors. TFOWR 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Action-less, comment less administrative thread

Hi TFOWR, would you please comment as to why no administrator is answering or commenting on this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ppwrong - This is not a request for your involvement as an Administrator but for a comment here as an editor, the thread has been open a fair few hours and began with a racist allegation against an editor. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like it was simply unnoticed in the usual ANI jungle. I added an unresolved note to the top to attract attention as it's a pretty clear and serious case of personal attacks. It probably wasn't advisable to repeat the personal attack to attract attention however, much less in bold and capitals. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No idea why no one's commenting - maybe because they're confident you're on the case? I had a quick check of contribs, my first thought is hit up RFPP for the two main articles. Mention the racism allegation in your RFPP report, and mention ANI so it doesn't look like you're forum shopping (hell, blame me if that allegation comes up - point them here). I can't get involved right now - things have just kicked off at BISE, with one SPI report coming back positive for socking by a BISE participant, another BISE participant has just been blocked for civility, and I suspect the shit-storm is just beginning - I had just volunteered myself for something (see the thread above) when all this kicked off, and I had to run away. TFOWR 21:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Griftiger for those actions and thanks TFOWR for commenting, there appears to be no attention, or even a comment. No worries, lets see if anyone comments there. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Would I be ok to take the lack of comment and interest and action to AN or Artbcom for discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

¡Viva la Revolución!

"Esta usted en territorio wikipedista en rebeldia. Aqui manda el pueblo Y el admin obedece."
"Are you (You are?) on wikipedia territory in rebellion. And here the people obey the admin."?

Seems TWOFR TFOWR is not around, has he been captured by the rebel cabal? - >:-O - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 06:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Must... restrain...OCD impulse... to correct TFOWR's name... sonia♫ 07:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Must... learn... to... proufread... bettur... - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 07:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, first things first - I stole it from Sannita, an admin at the Italian Wikipedia, though they weren't, I assume, the first person to use it (someone else here on en.wiki also uses it). The image is on Commons, and is a modified version of the one shown at Zapatista Army of National Liberation#Ideology.

According to the Zapatista article, and my poor attempts to translate the modified version, it reads:

You are in Wikipedista rebel territory. Here the people command and the admin obeys.

I mean, really! You think I expect people to obey me? You only need to look at this thread (above) to see what happens when I have any kind of "leadership" role... people ignore me, and other admins step in to fix the mess...

On the subject of "TFOWR" (and, arguably, my own "unique" views on "leaders"), there's another thread (above) that discusses recall and other admin issues, and I've commented on it - crucially offering various things that "TFOWR" might stand for... TFOWR 08:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Terrible Frighteningly Oppressive Wikipedia Regime". That's what all you admins are, eh? No answer needed... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indef block - back-talking to an admin. Use the {{unblock}} template to request review, and I'm confident one of my colleagues will tell you "no" ;-) TFOWR 08:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll just "sass-mouth" them, too! I'll be unblocked in no time... Doc9871 (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Terrifically Fair Objective Wikipedia Rearguard". :-p Doc2  :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Superb! Any other takers? I want to see the best suggestions for "TFOWR"! TFOWR 09:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "The First Original Wikipedia Rebel? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This fella once wore rouge? sonia♫ 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Capt Tiberius FOul WeatheR - ☠ Arrr! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Trinidad, Found Off West. Row! Capn. T. Fowr ☠ 11:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't want to be a DOLT

This seems to be a personal attack and legal threat; could you WP:MOP it up? Probably needs revdel and the IP blocking. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mila Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

95.19.64.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Not sure about NLT or DOLT, but the article's subject is a BLP, and BLP applies on talkpages (and everywhere). You did the right thing removing it (well, the editor who blanked the talkpage did mostly the right thing - you did the right thing restoring the WikiProjects and warning the IP). I'll keep an eye on the article, and try to keep an eye on the IP (though what's the betting they're on a dynamic IP address...) TFOWR 09:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly at least a BLP violation, but I figured the claim that the individual has stolen large sums of money (including from the author of the comment), is an illegal immigrant, etc. might constitute a legal threat. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a threat against a member of the community, though. We need to protect the subject from BLP issues, but it's her own problem if someone threatens legal action for off-wiki stuff. Incidentally, I've not trawled through history yet, but is there a COI issue here? The subject seems a little obscure for an article, and the article was quite... promotional... TFOWR 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure; I haven't trawled the history yet either. I found the talk page blanking while trying out Huggle (not liking it so far) and fixed it. I wasn't aware that we're not interested in legal threats against non-editors; I'll bear that in mind in future. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For good ness sake don't quote me on that! ;-) It's always best to err on the side of caution. I think in this case the situation is in hand - the IP's comment has gone, and the IP has been warned. Definitely worth keeping an eye on, but for now I think the article is our main concern. TFOWR 09:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that WP:NLT does seem to only apply to threats against the foundation or the community, so don't worry, I'll quote the policy not you ;) I note that WP:LIBEL does state that policy is to delete libel once identified though; I guess there's no means of confirming that it is libel rather than just a BLP violation though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that that edit was "potentially libellous" (and qualify it by saying that only a court can determine whether something was libel ;-) Definitely better off gone, and I think that you're right and WP:LIBEL applies. TFOWR 11:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Hamish Griffin

User is on another spree mass creating very short stubs on English settlements, some of which may not even meet the basic policy that all settlements are de facto notable. Have you any idea what can be done in the nicest possible way to get him to include some basic information?--Kudpung (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamish Griffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'll take a look! My concern here is that, after creating them all, they'll ask me to delete them. Easier than having someone else CSD-tag them as well, but still a pain to mop up. TFOWR 09:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, I'm very much not a prolific article creator, but they've created more articles in 3 minutes than I've created in 3 years... I left a supplementary message, explaining what other editors have to do by way of cleaning up. I had a quick look at some of the new creations as well. I'm no expert on geog-notability, so have no real idea whether these are notable or not. In the past I've declined Hamish's CSD requests for some articles, as other editors had worked on them, and they ended up looking quite good. I'd like to see Hamish doing that work, however - it's far easier to get {{coord}} added at article-creation time, rather than going through the "tag, wait, add" dance that normally occurs with these hamlet articles. TFOWR 09:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, English settlements is an area I work on and know my way round, but like you, I don't feel like cleaning up and expanding 50 stubs with infoboxes and coords. Generally our policy is to include any settlement that is inhabited and is marked on an OS map. This prevents people from listing their farms and clearing in a forste with a telephone box. Hamish tends however to create piece of land that has a name used by the kids on the block. mass producing one-liners and expecting others to clean up is rather a no no, even for what is possibly a young author who is creating in Good Faith. A gentle block threat migt do the trick; but I don't thisnk he even reads his talk page. At one stage I thought he was using a bot.--Kudpung (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: ITN timer and the bot

If your activities are dealing with ITN then why are you resetting the timer for the DYK bot? As indicated by the beginning portion of the file you are updating, Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, your actions are affecting Template:Did you know‎ and not ITN. --Allen3 ^talk 12:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, bugger. Sorry about that. No idea how I managed to do that, I normally reset the ITN timer directly from a link on my userpage. I'll check the correct timer now. TFOWR 12:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN timer's OK, BorgQueen got it. Once again, apologies for that. I still have no idea how I managed to get the wrong time, I don't have any DYK stuff on my userpage. TFOWR 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mopstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For being the friendly local admin and patiently handling all of the various mop-jobs I've asked of you since your RfA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I figure this is overdue, given the amount of moppery I've delegated to you since I first encountered you just after your RfA. Keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to let me know if I borrow your mop too often! GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (And did we really not meet until after my RfA? I feel like I've known you since forever!) TFOWR 12:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I don't recall exactly when now, but I seem to remember the first encounter I had with you was when your talkpage was full of "congrats on your RfA". I choose to take the forever as a good thing ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Rix whitewashing

Hey TFOWR, you're the only admin on my watchlist, don't ask me why, so I figured I ask you. User:Freelancer1 has taken out referenced material he feels is negative about Rix six times. Each time, he takes out the same material. I have tried to talk to him on his talk page, but he hasn't been online - until yesterday. Yesterday an IP made the exact edit he has been making. I'm 99% sure it's him again, though my gut says he has read the talk page notices and won't use that user (Freelancer1) again. Along the way, he has claimed to be a family member of Rix, shown that refs mean nothing to him, and has repeatedly marked his edits as minor, trying to get by. He only pops up every couple of months, but it is kind of annoying. Anything I can do? Nolelover 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, my first thought is that Freelancer1 (talk) has a WP:COI if they're a family member (as they seem to have said with their "my family appreciates" comment). I suspect you're correct, and that Freelancer1 won't edit again, however let me know if they do. You've spoken to them, if they continue to remove source text I'll happily block them until the message sinks in.

Turning to the IP, I think you're right, and that it's Freelancer1. The IP has only edited once at Chris Rix, so I'm reluctant to protect the article but that would be my next step if the IP (or other IPs) persist - again, let me know if that happens and I'll protect the article (obviously, I've now watchlisted Chris Rix, but I may miss something).

In summary: I don't think anything is warranted right now, but there is clearly a problem. I'll semi-protect the article if the problem continues. TFOWR 13:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't think immediate block and semi was needed. I was thinking more along the lines of an I've-warned-him-so-lets-stake-it-out kind of thing. I just wasn't sure if the amount of time in between edits (sometimes 3 or 4 months) would be a problem. Nolelover 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Alone at BISE

It's very difficult for me, when arguing for 'British Isles' addition, when LB & TR continously volunteer for forced wiki-breaks. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There's still BW, and remember that I'm basing my decisions on arguments, not weight of numbers. But I do agree that the recent "breaks" don't help. I'm also pissed off with The Maiden City and its amazing circus of IP socks - on a community-level, crap like that does nothing to help, say, LevenBoy. Folk are already seeing an open SPI: seeing IP socks that (I'm fairly certain) have nothing to do with LevenBoy editing on LB's behalf really doesn't help. TFOWR 15:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This MC bloke merely wishes to stir trouble for everyone. The bugger only wishs to hurt LB, not help him. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked into TMC's background yet, but it did occur to me that it could be a false flag user, intending to complicate things for the side it's pretending to support. To be honest, I don't really care: if we focus on sound arguments, and deal with the nonsense effectively (blocking socks, enforcing civility, making sure the topic ban works) then the idiots who were long ago indefinitely blocked won't be that much of a problem. It comes back to what I said earlier about not caring if an argument comes from a card-carrying member of the "British Imperial (Take Back the USA and Ireland) Party" or the "Republican Ireland (Invade the UK) Party" - if the arguments are sound, that's good enough for me. Weight of numbers doesn't matter, so socking is just a waste of time. TFOWR 15:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know GD, I agree with you and TFOWR re: the TMC issue - there is reason to believe somebody, or a group, has been playing 'both sides' (call it false flag or good hand/bad hand) in a long term pattern of abuse--Cailil ^talk 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Irvine22 is a suspect, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

semi

Hi, is currant not correct? I like currants...? Also, I have requested semi prot at the WP:RFPP .. could you add it for me, it is usual for brit party leaders as the attract a lot of vandal edits. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It was only the date format I was *cough*ing at - "September 25, 2010" would be OK for US articles, but for the new Ed of the UK Labour Party we should be using "25 September 2010" - UK format for UK subject, etc.

I'll take a look at RFPP now. I'm not sure if I can protect, however - depends on the article, but I'm currently in a dispute at Labour Party (UK). TFOWR 16:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...Ed Milliband, however, is fine. So he's the new ruler leader? Wikipedia, where I get my news from...! Oh yeah, semi, 3 days... TFOWR 16:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...I took the opportunity to make a party political broadcast on behalf of PC, too. I need to stop doing that - I'm going to piss me off before too long. TFOWR 16:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, a few days will allow for discussion as to how to go forward. I would have added pending, but in the currant environment it would be controversial to request it. His brother David Miliband is on pending as is the present (currant) chancellor George Osborne, all working well and with the added wiki founding goals bonus that unconfirmed accounts can still contribute. From Jimbos page, Statement of principles, 3 - "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. - pending is much much closer to that goal than semi protection.Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mackay 86

If you have time, have a look at this chap, please. Long story short his previous "hobby" was downloading files from Commons, weirdly distorting them and uploading them here under a new name, then introducing them into articles, and edit warring to keep them in when other editors removed them, and explained they were hideous distortions. Fastily, myself and a couple of other editors rooted all the images out, and got them deleted - then Fastily gave him a final warning.

His new "hobby" seems to be altering templates and infobox templates, breaking the transclusion on hundreds of pages. I've attempted to explain, but the only response anyone gets is for their comments to be deleted, or an abusive edit summary.

If you do look at this, check the talk page history too - he deletes criticism there before the ink is dry. I'm not sure if it's malicious, or just WP:CIR, but I do know it's getting very annoying. cheers  Begoon&#149;talk 15:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this with LessHeard vanU, who had raised a kind of similar issue with Mackay in the past. My gut feeling is simply to block to get attention, but I'm uneasy about attention-getting blocks so I'd like to sanity check my gut feeling first. This editor does look a little too "interesting" to be productive: prior to the image stuff they were doing infobox stuff as well, and appear to have been discussed at ANI. TFOWR 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I had seen that when I looked through that history a couple of weeks ago - that's how his user page ended up getting protected, I think - to stop him repeatedly adding infobox stuff he'd been instructed not to. I've come across a few editors a bit like that - they think they are working in their own little bubble and don't appear able to deal with it when people start talking to them, or advising them. Almost like they suddenly realise Wikipedia isn't just a game they play alone on their computer, but a real thing that actually exists. Badly explained, but at least one of us knows what I mean :-)  Begoon&#149;talk 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the "bubble"! I'm too lazy to trawl through my archives, but didn't you and I work "with" an IP who was very keen on making changes that worked "in their browser"? Something to do with Oman, I think... TFOWR 16:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's uncanny - I was going to mention him, but thought you might not have seen the incredible behaviour parallels. Yes, I'm too lazy to look up his IP - but yes, it's a definite category of user we need to invent here - WP:EITB - editor in their bubble. His thing was pointless style changes like centreing tables and captions, against established style, and refusing to use a cross browser compatible way to do columns, even after he was shown why it was better than "his own" way.  Begoon&#149;talk 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at LessHeard vanU's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've just indefinitely blocked Mackay. Sad block, with a personalised block notice noting that I'd hope they'd return to the fold in the future. TFOWR 20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, that's what I would have done with Mackay, and I would have (and do) felt as bad as you do. Sadly, sometimes there does come a point where reflection on actions won't happen unless forced. I think you handled it very well, and even any indication they understand the problem and would be willing to fix it should be a reason to unblock. Reblocks, as they say, are cheap. I hope the "indefinite" part will be enough to import the seriousness, and I'm going to add an offer to help if they do decide to return, and need any help.  Begoon&#149;talk 21:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That was an exceptionally kind message you left. I hope something comes of it, and Mackay does request unblock. (Hopefully not just yet, but still...) TFOWR 08:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well,it's true enough. I would be happy to help them, if they understood the reasons for the block and were willing to attempt to be constructive in the future. One of the most frustrating parts about this kind of situation, where someone refuses to discuss advice or help offered, is that often you know that they are competent enough to follow the advice and would feel better about their own edits in the long run. The problem seems to be in the way they treat everything that originates outside the bubble™ as hostile criticism. Occasionally you can get past that, and even if not, it's best, for them and for you, to try. Possibly the "wake up" call will be enough, possibly not, but at least at that point you've done your best, and are pretty sure where it all stands.  Begoon&#149;talk 14:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mad refactoring to confuse people reading my archives

Off-topic (somewhat ironic, as you've just refactored to restore topicity [sic] ;-) but (a) thanks for refactoring, I added the sub-header above to focus on our conversation when I linked to it at the poll talkpage, and (b) hope I didn't misrepresent you. I thought the key point to make was that there's more to do than just the bit Jimbo mentioned. TFOWR 14:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't misrepresent me in any way. In fact it provided me with an excuse to post again. Hell - you never know, if at least one person looks at it and thinks - "Hey, look, here's two guys who voted on opposite sides but they had a long, sensible discussion where they both ended up with slightly refined opinions based on actually listening to each other - and they did it all without snarkiness or snide asides" then it's done some good. Of course, that's probably optimism at the level of "free beer week" at my local pub. But we can't change the world overnight.  Begoon&#149;talk 16:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Free beer week" - I can but hope! It does occur to me that I had a similar conversation with David Levy (talk) in the straw poll discussion. Not similar in terms of topics, similar in terms of a civil discussion. So it is possible - this wasn't just a fluke! Now, let's see if my local likes your idea - free beer here we come! TFOWR 17:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like you were right and I was wrong again - we have attracted some support comments. Maybe it really is worth placing those enquiries at our respective locals after all... :-)  Begoon&#149;talk 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey TFOWR :). Even though you told me a while ago (under a "mindset of vandals" thread on my TP (that's talk page- not toilet paper lol)), I thought I'd let you know I decided to incorporate some welcome templates into Huggle as part of AGF. It just hit me, don't know why I hadn't thought of it sooner! Hope all's well, Tommy! 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that is interesting - I've never used Huggle (only started using Twinkle and Friendly in the past six months or so...) but I hadn't realised you could config it quite like that. If Twinkle is that configurable, I've not worked out how to do it. Recently I've been doing quite a lot of copyvio reverts and welcomes, and I've gone back to manual, personalised messages (after a generic welcome) because Twinkle doesn't have exactly what I want.

...but - "level 0" vandal warnings! Good stuff! And thanks for showing me a useful tip - I'll try and give Huggle a test-drive. TFOWR 08:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I only [realized not too long ago myself. It's pretty cool :D You could even write your own welcomes/warnings, configure them as levels, and set them as your templates. I'd probably go compulsive over wording them if I tried though. sonia♫ 08:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What tool is it that actually shows the diff that was reverted? I was quite disappointed when I first started with Twinkle that Twinkle wouldn't do that - it's pretty good for most other stuff. It automagically knows which page I'm talking about, so I'm surprised it doesn't also know which diff I reverted... Anyway, I'm loving the sound of Huggle. On my to do list I've got "welcome templates" as an action-item - Mais oui! (talk) has a "Scotland" welcome, and it would be very useful to be able to use that (I have a lot of daft Scottish pages on my watchlist, and they seem to be, uh, favourites for editors who, uh, need advice...!) Recently I've noticed that anarchist-related topics are also areas where new editors could do with learning about NPOV - I keep meaning to write an essay for anarchist/libertarian editors, which I could link to from a welcome template. And my most recent addition is copyright-stuff - there's an upcoming ITN which may involve an article that's been a dumping-ground for press-releases. TFOWR 08:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, huggle's interface ([3]) shows you the diffs :). The blue "i" button has the lists of (custom too) templates (drop down) while the red button drop down is the custom revert summaries. If you decide to try it out, feel free to use my .css page for yours. Although I'd change "auto-advance" to false for beginners. :) Cheers! Tommy! 10:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This may not be as straightforward as I'd hoped - Huggle is a .net app, and I'm on Linux usually. I'll play around with Mono and Huggle, and see if it's still an option. Fingers crossed... TFOWR 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: trying to use Wine, but I get a regsvr32.exe error when I run step 4.3 at Wikipedia:Huggle/Wine. Ignoring the error, and trying to run wine huggle.exe, Wine complains that I need to use the MS version of .net. I'll keep at it... TFOWR 11:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for any interested stalkers, apparently pure-Mono is out of the question as it lacks some necessary libraries. *Cough!* Java. If only there was a real cross-platform environment that could be used... alternatively, could Huggle be written with Mono in mind? I 'spose having this conversation at Huggle's talk pages would be better... TFOWR 11:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, oh, and before anyone asks... no, I am not going to run up a VM just to use Huggle... TFOWR 11:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of British Isles

Hello again. I've just been having a think about your earlier posts. Are you telling me that no one at Wikipedia can add or take out British Isles without permission from some other users? If so, does that apply to any other terminology, how is it managed, and how are people supposed to know about it. I find it odd to say the least. Lancashire Druid (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely. In general Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, and to make positive changes without there needing to be any discussion or agreement.

From time to time an editor will make a change, another editor will object, and the first edit will be reverted. This is normal. What happens next can vary, however. The approach I prefer is one called "bold, revert, discuss" - once the second editor has reverted the edit, both editors would then discuss the change on the article's talk page, and hopefully arrive at a consensus (other editors might well see the discussion and join in, offering their own opinions).

What's probably more usual, unfortunately, is that the original two editors - instead of discussing the change - "edit war". This involves reverting each other repeatedly. This is regarded as disruptive, and to prevent it happening too much there's a rule called "3RR" ("the three revert rule"): any editor who reverts on the same article more than three times in one 24-hour period can be blocked, or prevented from editing, for a time. This forces editors to either discuss changes (eventually!) or stop editing.

In the case of the "British Isles", new editors aren't expected to know about the sanctions. Once they've edited a few times, someone (me, in this case) will let them know. My concern wasn't so much that you should be constrained, it was more that other editors get concerned when new editors appear and start adding or removing the term.

Most things on Wikipedia are consensus-driven, though there are some rules and guidelines. The most important "rules", however, are "the five pillars" - in general, if you have a quick read of the five pillars, and follow them when editing, you should be fine. (Consensus, by the way, is part of the 4th pillar, which mostly covers editing with respect to other editors: be civil, act in good faith, etc.

That's the "fluffly" version of the introduction to Wikipedia. The "spiky" version, or "what they don't tell you in the five pillars or the pretty press releases" version, is this:

Different editors have different, strongly held opinions. For example, editors from Iran believe that there is a stretch of sea called the "Persian Gulf". Editors from Arabia believe that this is Iranian propaganda, and that the stretch of sea should be called the "Arabian Gulf". This causes editors to covertly make changes, to argue, and to edit war. I'm sure you can think of other topics that might also be subject to this! The "British Isles" is one-such area - on Wikipedia they're called "POV" topics, from the policy "WP:NPOV" (neutral point-of-view). We're all supposed to try and edit from a neutral point-of-view, but sometimes it's hard!

The "British Isles" is by no means the worst area for "POV editing", but it is an area where strong emotions and strong views come into play. There's antagonism between British and Irish editors, and between unionist and nationalist editors. That doesn't mean that every British or Irish subject is a battlefield (I doubt there would be too many issues editing topics about Lancashire, for example) but certain areas are quite heated.

Don't worry too much about the "spiky" stuff. There are plenty of articles where the biggest problem will be that you seem to be the only person who bothers about it. I occasionally edit "Oman" - it's a fairly big country in the Middle East, yet I seem to be one of only two editors who every really edit it. And the other editor is someone I get along with just fine.

Hope this helps, and don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions. TFOWR 19:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks from "his" edits that the purpose of the Lancashire Druid account is to add British Isles to articles - shall I raise them at the BISE page for review TFOWR? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need right now. I let Lancashire Druid know about WT:BISE, and since then their only edits have been to chat with me about editing. TFOWR 11:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhh banned for OR?

I just had a moment which challenged my understanding of wikipedia policies when I saw this template added by an IP, to the talk page of an indef blocked user. I reverted the addition and tagged it for speedy deletion as blatantly misrepresenting policy (banned, indeed). Does anything else need to be done? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Chen Wenyuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'll keep an eye on the editor's contribs. I've CSD-T2'd the template, beyond that, I guess WP:AGF kicks in, but... very interesting creation for a first edit. TFOWR 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've also just removed the dead transclusion from about 15 other talk pages of indef blocked users. I'm glad it wasn't substed... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite run-of-the-mill vandalism, but I'm not sure what I'd call it. Well, alright, I did call it vandalism. I indef blocked Chen Wenyuan. Still not comfortable calling it vandalism, but even less comfortable haing that account unblocked. After creating the template, "an IP" immediately added it to several editors (the ones you found and reverted). This strongly suggests bad-ness to me. TFOWR 20:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed two things: almost all of the users had been blocked by Future Pref, and when checking the IP's contrib history, they had added pro-nazi propaganda to several pages in Future's userspace, along with another edit to Future's userspace which had been revdelled. It seems they had some sort of personal issue with Future. As for vandalism; it's very clearly a deliberate hinderance to the project, so it is certainly vandalism. The only reason I issued a level 2 template instead of a 4im is because you mentioned AGF so I thought I'd leave it up to you as to what would be most appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Sonia's talk page.
Message added 09:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see my reply just below your comment. HeyMid (contributions) 09:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't need {{Tb}}s for Sonia's talkpage, by the way ;-) Got it watchlisted. TFOWR 10:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there were only upper-case letters; HJ MICHELLE (almost screaming). HeyMid (contributions) 17:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Do you have a couple of minutes spare please? Ive requested List of national anthems be speedy deleted so List of anthems of United Nations member states can be moved to that prime spot. As there are 3 anthem lists which are rather disorganised so making it into a single list. Theres agreement on the talk page for it and i proposed it over a month ago. Just added the speedy delete template but i see theres a backlog there. Could you do it if you have a moment please? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is deleted, however... there is a talk page. Not sure where it came from, so I'll leave you to figure that out. Probably the best best would be to copy one talk page's contents to the other, then get me to delete the empty one. TFOWR 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved content / talk page that was at List of national anthems to List of anthems by nation so the talkpage history could be preserved. Once the main article is moved to the prime spot i was going to turn List of anthems by nation into a redirect. The talk page that was at List of national anthems should of been new and empty. Page moves are very complicated :( BritishWatcher (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

They are indeed! Normally when I delete a page, it tells me that there's also a talkpage, which it did in this case, and you can see the talkpage and decide whether to delete it - I saw content when I checked originally, but I guess maybe the delete-page follows redirects. I checked the actual talkpage just now, and it was a redirect, so I deleted it. All should be good now. TFOWR 17:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the move worked, thanks for your help :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

related to this

Not the right way to go about it...

124x247x221x146, I've blocked you for three hours for edit warring. In particular at Chennai International Airport, but I've seen similar behaviour at other airport articles.....

This person used to edit previously under username Jaspel, dont know if he was banned but he stopped editing from March, and is now back with this new identity, you can compare his previous edits with current one, warring style and uncommunicative stance at all airline articles in the past as well, many times he reverts edits out of vengence, for unknown reasons and wthout any provocation, its like he wants to cause distress, even if the edits are within wikipedia guidelines.116.71.1.164 (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jasepl (talk · contribs)

Thanks. The former user only has one short block, from long ago, so I don't think there's any attempt to mislead here. 124x247x221x146 has a block log now, so if problems recur the next block will be longer. TFOWR 19:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Hello TFOWR,

I would like to ask you for help. I had been travelling for a few days, only to return to my personal life and be harassed and threatened. Is there a way to remove any and all references to me on the en.wiki?

--Faust (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. You can exercise your right to vanish and retire, but your edits will remain - there's really no way to "delete an account". If you're only concerned about personal security, then you can remove any personally-identifying information (email addresses, telephone numbers, anything that might help someone work out where you live), and I'd be happy to "revision delete" any edits in which such information was posted. However, the rest of your edits would - and must - remain. TFOWR 21:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the vanishing, but I do not think it will be fully necessary. I guess only the user and talk page of Faust and an edit concerning the changing of my username into Faust should be completely removed. Is that possible? --Faust (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can delete your userpage completely, no problem there. I can't delete talk pages, but I can delete individual edits to talk pages (and any other page) if necessary. TFOWR 22:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I will look them up and leave links here. --Faust (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. In the meantime, do you want your userpage deleted? It'll remove the page's history from view (except to admins). If you ever change your mind in the future you can ask that it be restored, so it's not completely final. But it will hide it from stalkers, etc. TFOWR 12:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remove my user page. --Faust (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done TFOWR 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Further requested deletions:

And there should be logs of my changing usernames in the past. I do not know where to look for them. Perhaps you could help out?

--Faust (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And then this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TFOWR&oldid=387554637  Not done. See note below. TFOWR 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

--Faust (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And then this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TFOWR&oldid=387554791  Not done. See note below. TFOWR 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad Infinitum

--Faust (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

These last two won't be necessary, as the only security concern would be that they refers to revisions where you're identified. Since the revisions will be deleted, it won't matter. Still looking into the others, I can see why you'd want them to disappear, but I need to think about the best way to do it. TFOWR 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Still looking into this. I'll keep you updated... TFOWR 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how do I get rid of the log of the renaming on the renaming page? Since I don't know where to look... --Faust (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When I changed my username (I used to be "This flag once was red" - long story, even longer username...) I went to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. I'd suggest starting there first, or trawling through your contributions looking for "Changing username". I don't know how happy they'd be about it, however - that's something I'd want to run past a bureaucrat or an oversighter. Incidentally, the reason for the delay is because - to do this right - I'll need to delete a sizeable part of your talkpage's history. For that reason I've raised it with oversight, to see if there's a preferred way for me to do it. TFOWR 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll await the verdict. Here are the diffs I was looking for btw:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&oldid=370971674

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faust_%28usurped%29&oldid=371160657  Done. TFOWR 08:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&oldid=371160885

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&oldid=371273194

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thesevenseas&oldid=371294270  Done. TFOWR 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&oldid=371349156

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thesevenseas&oldid=371373923  Done. TFOWR 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thesevenseas&oldid=371374066  Done. TFOWR 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

--Faust (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk note: You're going to have to modify and revdel Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations/Completed/20 as well. sonia♫ 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Also User talk:Thesevenseas/Archive 2 too! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 328° 20' 30" NET 21:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)  Done. TFOWR 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how revdel on the revisions on my talk page helped, since the content is still visible in late revisions. Also, you might be able ask a steward lock and oversight your account if it is global. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 329° 28' 30" NET 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I'm rapidly coming to understand the limitations of rev-del ;-) TFOWR 22:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• @ Faust, one thing I'm going to have to do is to seek review of my actions here. That will involve asking other admins to check over what I've done. That may result in some of my actions being reversed. @ Admins: Usual disclaimer applies: I won't consider it wheel-warring, etc etc... TFOWR 08:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Farîd

How can I add this picture to my 'Egyptian nationalism' page? http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Mohammed_Farid.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capolinho (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The source listed suggests that the source is in the public domain, so I believe it's fine to upload here. Make sure that you copy the source ("The truth about Egypt, By John Romich Alexander, صفحة 196 من كتب جوجل, و الكتاب في ") and provide it when you upload it here. You should mention that the image came from ar:ملف:Mohammed_Farid.jpg, and that the image is in the public domain. TFOWR 18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All right. Thanks, TFOWR! --Capo (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't select the public domain, please check it for me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_Farid.jpg#Licensing --Capo (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I changed the licensing tag to {{PD-US}}, because the book (and the image) was first published in the United States "before 1923" (in 1911). I'm by no means a copyright or public domain expert, so I'm also not sure if I'm doing it correctly, but it does look OK to me. TFOWR 08:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I have uploaded a picture here but the license, as usual, was a problem, that's why, the admins delete it. I have uploaded the same picture in the Egyptian Wikipedia and the admins there put the license for me, how can I use the picture in the English Wikipedia because I give up uploading pictures here? http://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Rahotep_and_Nofert.jpg --Capo (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just do the same that you did for File:Mohammed Farid.jpg - that seemed to work just fine. Is arz:ملف:Rahotep_and_Nofert.jpg a picture you took yourself? TFOWR 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capolinho (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If you took it yourself, you would probably be better off either uploading it to Commons or, better still, asking an admin at the Egyptian Wikipedia to transfer it to Commons. TFOWR 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I reuploaded it here. Do I have to upload it to Commons? --Capo (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No here should be fine. It was just that I thought getting an Egyptian Wikipedia to copy ("trans-wiki") it to Commons might be easier for you. As you've done uploaded it here, that's not an issue ;-) TFOWR 12:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to adjust the sanctions

Hi TFOWR, I've just blocked LevenBoy for this[4]. I think it's time to begin rolling out civility probation. Let me know what you think - I'm prepared to impose it myself now but wanted a second opinion. Also if you feel I've been too harsh please adjust the block/unblock as you feel appropriate.
In an unrealted matter I also indef eblocked Fatocop and Blue is better as confirmed socks - see WP:ANI and the Maiden City SSPi.
Also there is a lot of unusual disruption popping in the British Isles / Troubles area - I believe this maybe a long term sock-master having fun. (I'm not referring to teh LB/TR SSPI case here but rather 'The Maiden City' SSPi and the Willde360 account). It's becoming close to unmanagable by ordinary means. There may need to be mass semi-protection as well as a larger more careful examination of conduct/behaviour of a large number of confirmed sock accounts (ie MidnightBlueMan, Aatomic, The Maiden city). Also it might be timely to remind users from the BISE page not to disrupt / attempt to derail noticeboard threads - the LB / TR page is clogged with off-topic counter accusations.
With these points in mind I'm suggesting some ancillary editing restrictions in the BI probationary area (on an individual basis only and only when an account shows continuous disregard for site policy): 1)Civility Parole. 2)Talk page restrictions (1 post per day per talk page that addresses content only. 3)Interaction action bans. 4) Revert parole in the BISE area.
As the area is under probation we have these powers at our discretion BUT I'd like to formalize and agree them. I'm going to point Black Kite towards this post so he knows about it--Cailil ^talk 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I find the block worrying. Levenboys rude comment was out of line, but such a block should have been done by an uninvolved admin, levenboy had commented on Calils talkpage just moments before the block about going to ANI. I also find these proposals for draconian enforcement such as talk page restrictions troubling. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How am I "involved" my only interactions with any of you are purely administrative and have been. Also I have been warning both 'sides'. Using term "involved" must be backed-up with evidence. Secondly you infer that LB was going to ANi about me - that is not my impression - also I would have no problem with that bloock being reviewed. If LB b wants that all he has to do is request unblock--Cailil ^talk 20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I know your block was related to his comments and i agree the comments were unacceptable, i never use language like that on here. You were not involved in the specific issue he was blocked for, but it was right after his comment on your talk page where he was talking about your actions. I simply believe in all such cases it would be better to be handled by another Admin after that sort of interaction. Ive not said the block was unjustified, it was just the timing that worried me. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

LB's comment to me about an appropriate warning given to another editor doesn't preclude me from taking action in this area or with him. It doesn't make me involved - per WP:INVOLVED--Cailil ^talk 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact LevenBoy has not requested an unblock shows he probably thinks it was justified and knows it will be denied. I was not trying to say it was against the rules for you to block him, sorry if it came across that way. It was just my opinion that it would have been better for someone else to have done it after the message hed left on your talk page just moments before. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If I felt my judgement was clouded BW I wouldn't have done it - the fact is I have unfortunately had to deal with far worse so LB's comment didn't affect my judgement. The block has been reviewed by other admins and was extended (talk page access revoked by LessHeard vanU) if anyone else thought I was wrong they would unblock--Cailil ^talk 14:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the proposals are less than ideal. I don't feel we've been left with much choice, however. "Blue is better" was pretty much the last straw for me, and Triton Rocker and LevenBoy both seem to have interaction issues that aren't being solved. TFOWR 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no objection to a civility probation scheme. As you saw, I'd warned LevenBoy previously, having had to snip a comment. Amazingly, LevenBoy anticipated the comment being problematic and even mentioned snipping in the comment!

I've been following both SPI reports, and saw that the "The Maiden City" had been closed with several socks identified and blocked. Very disappointing.

I've tended to focus on solely BISE, and let editors do as they wish elsewhere. Recently I've been more involvd at Talk:Ireland and Template talk:British Isles, and I've seen the problems outside BISE. These are all part and parcel of the same issue, so, again, I think you're correct.

Regarding your 1,2,3,4 points - I'm broadly in agreement, 2 will be ll be a tough one to argue for however. I've had no end of difficulty trying to get people focussed on policy, precedent, diffs, links. People want to <ahem> chat. It's been suggested that we run BISE like an RFC for each issue - that may be the only way it works. I've been "structuring discussions" into fors and againsts, and that hasn't been particularly effective.

Anyway - short answer: fully support. TFOWR 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, yes they are an unfortunate but now necessary situation. I think '2' would only needed to be applied in relation to individual cases after serial abuse of the 'noticeboard talk space' and would hopefully be the very last thing that would need to be implemented--Cailil ^talk 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For clarity though while I do see ... chatting... on BISE, '2' would really relate to ANI, AN3 SSPI RFAR etc rather than there per se--Cailil ^talk 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that'll be even harder to argue for, but having watched at least one recent SPI turn into a "BISE-night down the pub", I see the attraction. I suspect ANI would want to set their own house rules for ANI. I'm all for it, though, if we can get buy-in. It's the constant "X said something so I just have to response" that brings on the drama. I fail to understand why people can't see that stating a point and moving on is far more effective than the endless tit-for-tat retorts... TFOWR 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm I understand. The point of that one (and we can leave it for the time being) is to prevent the derailing of enforcement threads - there might be another way to do that though--Cailil ^talk 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong - I think it's an excellent idea, and I think it's very necessary. I just think it's going to be a tough sell to ANI. Then again, the best argument for it is going to be the inevitable pile-on once the discussion starts... TFOWR 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If it'll help things at BISE? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the reason ive mentioned "the past" both @ ANI previously and on the SPIs is because i think things need to be put into context of the wider dispute, so a single incident or issue isnt taken out of context. It is like the current SPI against Leven / Triton. They both may have made the same sort of edits to the same sort of articles, all relating to the BI dispute but it does not mean they have to be the same people. Taken out of context, its easy to see how that would be very suspicious and with people calling for indef blocks for behavioural evidence alone its import to highlight that its a dispute that has been going on for years involving many editors. I dont do it to try and disrupt the process. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not really the problem, BW - what Cailil is hoping to prevent is the hugely indented threads, consisting of reply-and-counter-reply-and-counter-counter-reply. It's similar to the problem I've been trying to solve at BISE, by structuring discussions into single points. Allowing folk to make their case is fine (you'd be OK with mentioning the past history of the BI disputes), what's problematic is when an editor replies to a point, then that necessitates another response, which in turn provokes another response... There's really no need. It's perfectly possible to make every argument you need to make, in one post, then move on. People reading discussions are a lot less stupid than they're given credit for - they can see if a later argument that references an earlier argument is correct or not. TFOWR 23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely and on top of that all involved would be well reminded that diffs speak louder than opinions. Nobody needs to know what anyone else thinks of them - it just leads to trouble--Cailil ^talk 14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Now on ANi. Anyone else watching this should note that disruption of enforcement threads as happened at the recent SSPis and as happened before at ANi will not be tolerated. Please keep remarks pertinent be aware of WP:NOTTHEM--Cailil ^talk 23:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Seen it, thanks - I've noted my endorsement in an edit summary. I'll hold off on further comment for now (hoping for an earlyish night...) but it all looks good to me. I think setting finite terms for existing and future topic bans is good, too. TFOWR 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Hamish Griffin#Articles on hamlets

What on earth were you thinking when making this comment? Here is an editor creating articles on topics that, by consensus, should have articles. No article is expected to be perfect from the start, as this is a collaborative project per our editing policy. Hamish is being constructive here, and Kudpung and you are in fact the ones being disruptive by discouraging an editor from helping to build this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

By bizarre coincidence I've just posted on your talk page. Hamish's modus operandi is to create articles and then request that they be deleted. In many cases the articles should not be deleted (I've declined many of Hamish's requests). In others they turn out to be duplicates of existing articles. Unfortunately Hamish appears unable to tell the difference, and is also unable to tag them himself, meaning a long list of "unwanted" articles get dumped on someone else to go through, sorting out the wheat from the chaff. TFOWR 22:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Main conversation. TFOWR 08:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry about the vandalism on the busta rhymes article

I am truly very sorry, but can someone please review that article? Thank you --TheDeathKingTheGodfather 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's now been reviewed - it didn't meet the Good Article criteria, unfortunately. Take a look at the review page, and consider discussing it with L-l-CLK-l-l (talk) (the reviewer). TFOWR 08:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be trouble ahead

It is quite strange nobody has noticed the creation of Languages of the British Isles yet.. O Fenian (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the "sources" provided there are circular. WP can't cite itself, of course... Doc9871 (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it, but I tend to the view it should be deleted as the material is already in other articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Languages of the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ramwasp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

"There may be trouble ahead"? I think we're passed that point ;-)

I'll keep an eye on both. Heading offline shortly, so Cailil/Black Kite/ANI may be useful... TFOWR 12:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya

Hi I don't mean to be a bother but could you take a look at my request over at WP:PERM/ACC Cheers, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:31pm • 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not something I can do right now, I'm afraid - I'm about to go offline and permissions is an area I have very little experience with. If it's still unresolved when I get back I'll start reading up on perms. Stalkers, can anyone else with a handy mop assist FD? TFOWR 12:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FD, in case you check here before PERM/ACC - Wifione (talk) needs some info: "what's your user name on the tool interface"? I'll defer to Wifione - I've read up on perms, but I trust Wifione more than I trust me ;-) TFOWR 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks anyway I replied to his question :) Thanks again. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:02am • 01:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

AN discussion...

...has been archived[5] apparently without a final decision; but consensus seemed to be to loosen up the belt to where I can provide administrative assistance as needed, while keeping the direct interaction ban in place. Would I be safe to take that approach henceforth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't just yet. I have a lawyer on speed-dial, let me run it past them. TFOWR 21:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Message left. TFOWR 21:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. So which law partner did you get? Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, or McCormick? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheatum and Leeves? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 06:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheatum went off and started his own firm: Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Normally one or other of Grabbitt and Runne. On this occasion, however, I was advised that they would decline to provide counsel, as the matter had already been addressed. Ncmvocalist's pro-bono work vs. Grabbitt and Runne's telephone-number legal bills? Dammit, I was going to add 10% on to the bill (my "commission") and pass it to Baseball Bugs! TFOWR 08:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

JJBulten continues the hypocritical harrassment

Unfortunately, this editor, who claims to be paranoid and other delusions, is continuing his campaign of harassment. I find it inappropriate for him (not an admin, mind you) to be placing messages like THIS

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Longevity claims. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JJB 20:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

on my talk page when, in fact, he is a concerned party, not a third-party. This attempt at bullying should not be tolerated. What makes his unconstructive, unscientific, original-research edits OK but when I revert to the status/quo consensus he attempts threats like this?Ryoung122 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, anyone can drop a {{editwar}} template on another editor's talkpage, but it's usually only done when there's actual edit warring occurring - in this instance I can only see one revert by you. I'd suggest ignoring or removing the tag, or, better still, discussing it with John J. Bulten. I understood that some sort of mediation had been taking place? What happened to that? I see that, since this was at ANI, you reverted John J. Bulten and then he reverted you. Ideally both of you would be discussing changes and reaching consensus, which I assumed the mediation would be assisting with. If the mediation has broken down, so be it, but I'm concerned that both of you have now reverted each other. I'd recommend trying other forms of dispute resolution. I'm hesitant to protect the article, but will consider it if the pair of you can't discuss and arrive at consensus, and instead continue to revert each other. TFOWR 21:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

At mediation we have filed opening statements and are waiting on our highly esteemed mediator. It is true that Ryoung122 reverted for the fourth time to the same stale edition, undoing many edits similar to those he has approved in the past, due to one or two POV differences that I advertised at talk fully several days prior to engaging in (thus the second editwar template on his talk). It is also true that my next edit was technically a revert, but it was advertised at mediation prior to his last revert as a compromise attempt that restores nine POV sentences to his preference but is otherwise a revert. That is, his revert has no compromise component and mine does. Sooner or later I trust we will arrive at some kind of agreement as to how to edit while in mediation, but this is a slow process. TFOWR, as you yourself noted, Ryoung122's use of neglected aspects (such as not mentioning his using the "editwar" template on me) is surprisingly studious and does not help the situation. And it is not helped by my temptation, per his comment above, to whip out the personal-attack template on his talkpage next (this also broke BLP). Perhaps a more level-headed editor might judge the validity of such a template? JJB 23:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I did have a quick look at your talkpage (the one that you use, not the empty/disambig one), and couldn't see any post from Ryoung122? Regardless, it looks to me as if - after a long break - the mediation is active again, and Atama had asked that you both call a halt to reverts until you sort something out. I can only echo that. I don't intend to get involved as an additional mediator - Atama is more than capable. I will, however, protect the page and - if necessary - block one or both of you if you continue to revert each other. Discuss, arrive at a consensus, then make changes. TFOWR 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Instant archiving. :) Thank you for your encouragement. JJB 23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Move

Hi TFOWR, Can you help and move Cromer lifeboat station to Cromer Lifeboat Station which is the correct capitalization per WP:NOUN. it says I can;t move it as the name already exists - Thanks - Happysailor 09:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. All other Lifeboat Stations use WP:NOUN's capitalisation, so no worries. TFOWR 09:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - Happysailor 10:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete Commonwealth Games Association?

Commonwealth Games Association is currently a redirect (to Commonwealth Games). It's quite misleading, in that the two articles concerned address a different type of organisation. And if I'm not wrong this falls under one of the speedy deletion criteria. If you require me to perform the proper protocol of reporting at the speedy deletion page however, I can do so (grudgingly). In fact that's why I decided to report here first :D ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 11:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Have you considered pulling out the editing tool and writing content about Commonwealth Games Associations as the answer to this problem? What more can you write over and above the 1-line of content that used to be there (q.v.)? Similarly, what can you write about the Commonwealth Games Federation that isn't about the Commonwealth Games? Do the research, finding and reading the sources, answer those questions, and you'll know the right outcome here. In either eventuality, article or redirect, you don't actually need TFOWR or any other administrator to enact it for you. You have all the necessary tools in your own toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd tend to agree with Uncle G - I had a quick look at the history of Commonwealth Games Association and, more importantly, Commonwealth Games Associations before I got sidetracked. The latter article was a list before it was changed to a redirect. It seems to me that a well-written list would cover both the general case (Commonwealth Games Association) and the specific cases. Either way, I don't think speedy deletion would be right here - in the absence of any content, it's probably better to at least redirect to Commonwealth Games. TFOWR 12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur - this is one situation where a redirect beats a deletion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay noted. Thanks for the feedback. Best, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 09:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

British names

• List of British regional nicknames (AfD discussion)

You are heavily involved with a load of British/Irish editors who know about names. How quickly do you think that they could get that entire list sourced if they tried? Hours? I've found sources for one in the AFD discussion (q.v.), and a few editors have done a couple more directly in the article. Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure about hours, but I reckon they could make a good dent in it fairly quickly. WT:BISE gets abused by tangential notifications from time to time, I'll abuse my powers as mediator to call for refs. TFOWR 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The list defined refs make a big difference - I've started using them only quite recently (in my sandbox only, so far, though maybe at Oman...?) and they make life so much easier. Once you'd added Partrdige it made it trivial to check it for further entries. I've added the Concise Scots Dictionary, and that's got a few entries covered so far. Anyway... not much joy from WT:BISE (GoodDay 'fessed up to !voting delete...) and I need to head off shortly. It's looking a damn sight better, though. TFOWR 15:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I was an early adopter. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Links, please

Hi, please provide me some diffs/links, showing how you handle criticism and advices. Remember that I am still assuming good faith. HeyMid (contributions) 16:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Probably won't be today, though, as I'm about to go offline for the day. You're UTC+2? Maybe 11am-12am tomorrow, your time? Ping me if I haven't done it by mid-day. TFOWR 16:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, UTC+2. HeyMid (contributions) 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Heymid, I'm digging some stuff out now. TFOWR 08:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, a couple that I could easily locate (you'll maybe find more if you look through my talkpage archives).

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catfish John was an RfA where an editor disagreed with how I'd !voted. We ended up working together on the article, it reached the point where I was happy to change my !vote, and the article still exists today. It was a subject I was interested in, but I didn't think it was notable enough for an article - I was quite glad to be proved wrong. As well as the AfD and the article itself (and its talkpage) there are probably some harsh words from the other editor in my talkpage archives.
• This is a more recent example - I sometimes have "mental blocks" about things. (Yesterday, for example, I forgot that WP:SPI is semi-protected. This isn't the first time I've forgotten that, and I suspect it won't be the last... I have a "mental block" about SPI and protection!) Anyway... in this particular case my mentabl block was about prods. Prods are used to propose that deletion would be uncontroversial - in other words, if you know deletion will be contested, prods should not be used. I know that, I've known that for a long time, but I developed a mental block about it. An editor saw me prod an article when it was clear that deletion had been contested. What I should have done was take the article to WP:AFD. The editor removed my prod tag, and the discussion I've linked to ("this is a more recent example") is the conversation that followed.

In general, most editors are trying to help each other. They're not trying to get other editors into trouble, and when they criticise another editor it's more to help the project than to harm the editor. What we want is:

• More editors. That's the reason for WP:AGF, WP:DONTBITE and other policies and guidelines. The more editors we have, the better it is for the project. More editors help with the other things we need:
• More articles. Obviously! The project is to build an encyclopaedia, so more articles is our main goal.
• Better articles. This is also obvious, but it's also one of the reasons people will give advice. A new editor probably won't know about WP:CITE. They will once someone had told them. The manual of style is huge - most editors won't be familiar with all of it. I'm not. I expect to make mistakes with style at some point, and I'd hope that an editor with more experience would help me out. I've done one good article review, and I learned from it. I'd like to do more, and I expect to learn even more from the experience.

So... the thing to do, I believe, when someone offers advice or even criticism is to thank them. We all assume good faith, and it's reasonable to assume that when someone criticises you what they are really trying to do is improve the project. It's also, I think, a mark of respect - we don't bite the newbies (we should be as helpful as possible with newbies), but more experienced editors should expect to be criticised if they're pushing the limits of their experience. So when you're criticised you should think whether you're trying to hard. It might be worth backing off, and finding an easier area to work in. It might be worth thinking whether you now know enough to continue working in that area. It's always worth "stalking" more experienced editors. Right now I'm following what several editors at SPI are doing. I'm watching closely how they deal with SPI things: what they say, how they close and archive SPI reports, and things like that. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that that those editors have more experience in every area than me - I would imagine there are some things I actually know more about that them. But SPI isn't one of them!

One final thing - it's always worth asking instead of doing. You won't have seen it, because it's all happened on email, but recently I've been asking a lot of questions about revision deletion. I've emailed an experienced admin and asked for their advice. But for other things you can ask on talkpages. For example, one thing that many, perhaps even most, editors won't know about is list-defined references. This is quite new, and I haven't seen it being used very much. I think it's very cool, as it makes articles easier to edit, and easier to cite. This is how I discovered it. I asked another editor a citing question, and as a result of that I learned something really useful. That resulted in this article being improved, but not before I'd studied how "list-defined references" work by experimenting in my sandbox. Just yesterday I worked with list-defined references in another article (you can see the discussion that prompted this above). But my main point here is: I wouldn't have "rushed in" and started using list-defined references without having discussed it first, and learning as much as I could about them before starting to use them.

Sorry, that's quite an essay there! As always, feel free to ask me anything, at any time. TFOWR 09:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, I'll read through it when I come home today. HeyMid (contributions) 10:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

Hello, sorry to disturb you but can you check what I think is persistent minor vandalism to the Istanbul (Not Constantinople) article. The edits are being made by different unregistered users. Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for two weeks. I suspect that the vandalism will start up again in a fortnight, but at least we'll then have a basis for longer-term protection. I'd guess that there's some off-wiki shenanigans here... Unrelated, but I always thought that They Might Be Giants were the original authors... live and learn! TFOWR 10:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, much appreciated. Denisarona (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And there is more

[6]. O Fenian (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a reply lined up for The Maiden City's IP:

Why, thank you. If you take the time to look up, you'll see that I assumed the best until I checked, and realised that you were The Maiden City, using IPs to evade your block.

...by the time I hit "send" the IP edit had been reverted, and the IP was blocked. Don't these idiots realise that this crap affects their "side"? It screws the decent arguments being made by good faith pro-BI editors, and pisses off the community. TFOWR 10:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, their juvenile sectarian hatemongering is very counter-productive. O Fenian (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me how TMC is able to use different dynamic IP addresses that sometimes appear to come from different parts of the UK? I note that all the recent addresses are with the same ISP - Plusnet Tecnologies

• 84.93.157.59 - ?
• 87.113.24.44 - London
• 87.113.26.186 - London
• 87.114.206.255 - London
• 87.115.76.201 - Derby

Previously we had:

• 78.33.101.58 - Telford (ISP Entanet)
• 87.115.87.159 - Leicester (PlusNet)
• 87.115.136.194 - ? (PlusNet)
• 87.114.2.83 - ? (PlusNet)
• 81.187.71.75 - Nottingham (ISP ?) - others say this is in High Wycombe, others again in France
• 81.149.129.5 (ISP BT Openworld)

It reminds me of an Old Case involving YourCousin which also showed a remarkable tendency to just around within an ISP's dynamic IP range (note I'm not suggesting these are related cases!) - again where the ISP was PlusNet. Is it possible that some of the more recent SPI's are showing up at PlusNet too I wonder? --HighKing (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons and WP:BEANS precludes us all from explaining them all. Any sock-puppeteer could do this (rather than anything specific about this case) by access to proxies and/or different ISPs (by physical movement). If they're a hacker a zombie computer could also be the case. Basically, in some instances IPs don't necessarily give us a physical fix on where or who the real world user is at all, which is why we use behavioural analysis of edit patterns--Cailil ^talk 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cough. O Fenian (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, looks like TMC to me. If they start hitting articles I'll step in. TFOWR 11:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pilgrimsquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks a bit suspicious surely? O Fenian (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've, uh, just welcomed them. I'm waiting and seeing. They do seem to have found LevenBoy quite quickly, however. I'd link to the edit, but my snazzy new diff userscript is playing up... TFOWR 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a new SPI, it would seem best to get this cleared up quickly. O Fenian (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'm not comfortable with making WP:DUCK blocks on registered editors in the BISE area (which, I guess, The Giants Causeway is). IPs with obvious similarities to The Maiden City's known IPs are fair game, though... TFOWR 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. O Fenian (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged ;-) TFOWR 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything happened that fast I did not even have time to notify both accounts of the sockpuppetry case, so they could mount a defence. Obviously that means they should be unblocked immediately.. O Fenian (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely consider unblocking, with my abject apologies, if the SPI was solely on behavioural evidence. I'm not prepared to argue with a checkuser, however. Tnxman knows where I live... (well, they can find out...!) TFOWR 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

87.114.35.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), sigh.. O Fenian (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If "one-sided censorship" means blocking every one of The Maiden City's IP socks, then I'm guilty as charged. Obvious sock is obviously blocked. TFOWR 16:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

...and I have TGC watchlisted now, so any more TMC IPs I'll pick up on. I'll need some SPI-goodness before blocking registered editors, however. TFOWR 16:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well ahead of me I see. O Fenian (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, is that you? (Seriously, I couldn't make this stuff up). TFOWR 09:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally welcomed the checkuser to show how ludicrous the claims were, but those in authority thought it best not to entertain the sockpuppet's accusations. O Fenian (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even bother looking at the SPI, to be honest. I have now... Mabuska, is that you? ;-) TFOWR 09:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of censorship, the blocking admin did say he was going to block with talk page access revoked to prevent further disruption but seems to have neglected to tick the box, so you could always correct his mistake? O Fenian (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But... but... I was enjoying setting that uninformed troll straight... Cailil, if you had a change of heart about talkpage access, feel free to change the block. "I won't consider it wheel warring etc etc". TFOWR 09:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He will probably move onto the Pilgrim account's talk page now.. O Fenian (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS prevents me saying too much but this edit sealed the deal for me. I've got Pilgrimsquest watchlisted, and have my six-shooter loaded and my trigger-finger itching... TFOWR 10:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You were right! Gasp! What psychic powers you must have, Mabuska SarekOfVulcan whatever-your-damn-name-is. TFOWR 10:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

87.113.139.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I will not be reverting the IP for obvious reasons, I am sure someone else will be happy to oblige though. O Fenian (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wah! Evil TFOWR deleted an editor! Wah! Evil TFOWR is part of the conspiracy! Wah! Evil TFOWR works for the Irish government, is responsible for the Arab-Israeli problem, started World War II, and invented jogging! IP blocked and rolled-back. I'm expecting the flak to being in 3... 2... 1... TFOWR 18:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. At least you did not confess to being the person responsible for this monstrosity. O Fenian (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

147.114.44.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is Factocop back again. If you compare the edits on September 1 to Factocop's earliest edits you will see he created an account and carried on in the same way. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the connection here, to be honest. With the other IPs they were (a) very obviously in a similar range to IPs used previously by TMC, and (b) the edits were all recent (in this case the IP has a substantial edit history, including edits from the past week on more general topics). TFOWR 09:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Compare:

• [7] and [8]
• [9] [10] (in particular look at the times on the diffs - 22 minutes apart, that is right when the Factocop account started editing at 10:01.
• [11] (not quite the same IP, but look at the history from 1 September to see they are the same individual) and [12] (obviously ignore the vandalism and concentrate on Mick McCarthy)

Is that enough? O Fenian (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I do not believe Factocop is TMC and never alleged that now or before, there are two different sockmasters currently active. One is TMC with the IPs generally prefixed by 87, the other is Factocop with the IPs prefixed by 147. O Fenian (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, "TMC" is a convenient label. Factocop was only positively linked to "Blue is better". I'm still not entirely comfortable with a WP:DUCK block here. A naive interpretation would be that the most recent IP simply reverted to a sock's edit. Less than ideal, but not enough to block. I'm going to be offline for a day or two, so could you keep an eye on the IP (silly question!) and take it to either SPI, AIV or ANI as the situation requires? (Part of the reason I'm hesitant to do a duck-block is that I won't be immediately available to deal with unblock questions). TFOWR 09:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, look at this - "NC, I think your alias O Fenian will confirm my IP address given that he had me blocked while I was operating under an IP and before I had set up an account". That is where he denies this accusation - "Factocop, please stop the pretense that IP 87.113.26.186 is anyone other than yourself, it really is growing old". So he denies that he has an 87 prefixed IP, and admits I know what his IP is as I had it blocked. There is the block. Due to him also using 147.114.44.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 147.114.44.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on a fast-rotating basis I never made any AIV reports, but I made several page protection requests. Satisfied now? O Fenian (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No! I really don't have time. No amount of diffs is going to change that. If it's urgent take it to SPI, AIV or ANI. If it's not urgent I'll take a look in a couple of days. TFOWR 10:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

However, obvious socks are obviously blocked. TFOWR 11:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and this should be of interest. TFOWR 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting up the sock drawer

Do you believe this edit and summary is a different editor to the one who made this edit and summary, conveniently on the same day the semi-protection wore off? Their other edits show involvement in the exact same disputes as well.. O Fenian (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Miraculously they have the same IP too. O Fenian (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can think of WP:AGF reasons for the edit, though I admit it's a strong coincidence. In general, for registered editors I'd recommend SPI - they seemed quite fast with the previous Factocop response, and SPI will help build up a stronger case for any more permanent action (comm. bans, for example) than duck-blocks would. In this case, given the use of Factocop's IP address I reckon  Looks like a duck to me... TFOWR 16:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, too late: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Dame+edna+uk. MuZemike seems pretty on the ball with this. I'd still recommend punting registered editors to SPI, because it'll help build up a case for a community ban (and all the revert, block, ignore goodness that that brings) but ping me with IPs. I'm not sure if there will be any - it sounds as if there's just the one IP for the entire global banking operation with 141,000 employees, all of whom are fascinated by The Giants Causeway, but in case Global Corp has similar IP addresses in play... bring them here. TFOWR 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not suppose there is any chance of you implementing the rangeblock discussed here. It does seem a bit of a waste of time to have to deal with new sockpuppets all the time, when the apparently small IP range could be blocked so no new sockpuppets could be created hopefully. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

147.114.44.192/27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) seems manageable (32 addresses). I'll range-block and post at Factocop's SPI. TFOWR 16:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Obviously given your message you would not consider that to be wheel warring.. O Fenian (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I've restored Tnxman307's block duration - thanks for the heads up. I could have sworn I checked the range's log first. I guess not... off to SPI I go, for a grovelling apology... TFOWR 17:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

pending

Hi , I see your removed pending from Galloway with the comment, pending over. Could you please replace it as it was working well and there was no consensus/majority to randomly remove it .. did you think it wasn't working well there? Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to the article? I assumed you meant George Galloway, but I've never touched it. I'm heading offline now so WP:RFPP may be a better option - I'm happy with whatever they decide. For what it's worth, everything I removed pending from I either changed it to semi if there was still much time to run, or removed protection because the original duration was nearly up. Might be a few exceptions, though, so RFPP can decide what to do in those cases. If you don't get a response from RFPP I'll be around tomorrow morning. TFOWR 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, you're right - I checked the wrong log. Still, punting it to RFPP. TFOWR 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should replace it yourself, you removed it without any good reason. Please replace it, it was working well. What is this punting business, you removed it and just replace it or explain to me why it wasn't working well. punting? What does that mean? You removed it without any good reason, please replace it. Were you asked to remove pending protection from that article?Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with replacing it myself was the "I'm heading offline now" part, hence the "so WP:RFPP may be a better option" part. "Punting" is "passing" - in this case, passing to RFPP.

However... I am now online, and have looked at it. I'd still be far happier letting RFPP make the call, to be honest. I'm not seeing substantial recent vandalism, and although some exists, and some has been rev-del'd, it's not enough where I'd be comfortable applying PC if PC was a non-controversial option. Vandalism has been reverted very quickly in every case. My preference would be semi here, if vandalism recurs, but I'll leave that call to RFPP. There's an element of WP:BEANS here, so email me if you want more detail. TFOWR 08:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, as possibly the most hardcore PC fan on enWiki(edit:meaning you, not myself) I don't think you should be accosting admins for their PC actions, you have far too much personal bias to assess any PC change with neutrality Jebus989^✰ 09:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm possibly the most hardcore PC fan among admins. However, that's a major factor in why I don't feel comfortable re-applying PC here. TFOWR 09:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I miss PC on a few articles where it has been removed without any reason and where it was working well but I can live without it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Favor?

HJ Mitchell is not around right now so I'm going to ask you to take a look at WP:ITN/C#Goldilocks planet found and close it. We already have a lot of supports. The only reason it hasn't been put up yet is that people are confused because the Gilese 581 d article also stated that it was in the habitable zone. It's actually on the outskirts of the habitable zone. But never mind. Consensus declared that it be put up on the main page. I think we may even have an image. I'll go check. If you could do this sometime soon it would be great. Cheers, Mr. R00t ^Talk 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, 'fraid not - I'm with BorgQueen on this one - I have no clue ;-) It's only just over an hour since T:ITN was last updated, so I'm not too concerned with updates. The Goldilocks story is interesting, and I'd imagine an admin with science-savvy will post it soon enough. TFOWR 22:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. BorgQueen has a point, not a very good point, but a point. Someone will do it eventually. Mr. R00t ^Talk 22:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your edit summaries Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh! No worries! Since other editors were doing all the hard work, and I was just WikiGnoming, I felt the least I could do was to try and inject some humour into into it. This one would be my favourite, except that it was my fault... TFOWR 09:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quack! Quack!

user 71.180.252.43 (talk · contribs) seems to claim to be meleniumshane90 on my talk page, a banned sockpuppet master who has used multiple IPs to violate their ban, 71 has gone around and removed sock tags from the banned user pages, is this quacking loud enough?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quacking loud enough for Courcelles - blimey, that was fast! TFOWR 09:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's either a sockpuppet or a liar. I've got no use for either species, so blocked. Courcelles 09:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely. I'm unsure how this could be regarded as slanderous [sic] or libellous either. Mike Godwin is going to be in world of pain if tagging socks as socks was viewed as libel. TFOWR 09:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

sock now being rude on there talk page

user is now ranting on their talk page, i've explained the the evidence is plain and clear but they replied and called me a moron, im denying them at the moment--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... removed the abuse, reset the block, and denied them access to their talk page. Courcelles 10:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, will you stop that? ;-) I went to all the trouble of writing:

I am an admin, though not the one that blocked you. You were blocked for admitting to sock-puppetry, and, frankly, I'd have blocked you simply for removing sock puppet tags from other editors' talkpages. Sock puppet tags are not "slander" (they're not libel, either). By all means speak to a lawyer you trust rather than take my word for it. Removing tags from other editors' pages is disruptive. Stop it. Don't do it again. If you really are Meleniumshane90 then stop editing and go and find something else to do. Your access to this talkpage is solely so that you can request {{unblock}} if you feel you've been unfairly blocked - it is not to make personal attacks on other editors ("you're also a moron", above).

Good call - no need for them to have talkpage access, particularly if they just want to attack other editors. TFOWR 10:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks courcelles, i think you deserve a cookie!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)