Please don't leave {{YGM}} or {{Tb}} templates here—there is a very good chance I will see your message before I see the template. |
Military history WikiProject |
---|
Articles for review |
Dassault Rafale • Ulysses S. Grant • The Utility of Force • 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) • Siege of Kehl (1796–97) • Josef Wurmheller • SMS Cormoran (1892) • Battle of Kehl (1796) • First Battle of Passchendaele • British contribution to the Manhattan Project • No. 450 Squadron RAAF • M15 Half-Track
|
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
|
See the full list of open tasks |
If you have a query about my alternate accounts, please see this page.
Contents
- 1 Jimmy's talk page
- 2 Your complaint regarding ArbCom's speed of response
- 3 Requested Self-Block
- 4 Waiting for 1970 to come round again...
- 5 Too soon to block?
- 6 The Signpost: 07 January 2015
- 7 50.77.200.121 and Lindsey Stirling
- 8 Persistent British railways IP editor
- 9 Repeated attacks on the page Buxton Community School
- 10 Tarc and Thargor Orlando
Jimmy's talk page
You have protected JW's talk page for TWO weeks! He has an open door policy on his talk page so all are welcome. If there is disruption, try a less over-reactionary method -- maybe protect it for 2 hours; instead of 2 weeks. 85.76.18.93 (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- In order to be welcome on a page on Wikipedia, one must be welcome on Wikipedia itself. Blocking, and certainly banning, is an explicit revocation of that welcome, so evading your block is disruption in itself. Even if it weren't, evading your block to edit-war to restore an archived talk page thread certainly is. Please stop evading your block and use the usual channels if you wish to appeal—email ArbCom, use the UTRS system, or if you really wish to talk to Jimmy Wales you can email him (though, as I'm sure you know, his authority to lift ban or blocks is in pratice extremely limited). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Your complaint regarding ArbCom's speed of response
Context: [1]
It has been observed on multiple occasions that the committee takes excessively long times to respond to proposals (if at all) or to provide any sort of feedback on the workshop proposals or reveal a working draft version of the Proposed decision. Add to the fact that the exception is the committee posting the proposed decision on or before the due date (even when the due date is extended for "unspecified reasons"). I think it's time to start holding the committee accountable by assessing specific metrics (Participation in Evidence Phase, Participation in Workshop Phase, Proposed Decision Drafter, PD complete before due date, PD due date extended, Time to voting from PD posting) so that there's a metrics based measurement as to Arbs who decide to move forward into the next candidacy. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested Self-Block
Hi this is EoRdE6 (talk · contribs) home IP address. I am writing here (and at a few other Admins TP's) to request a block of my IP address (this one 98.74.168.58 (talk)). I am a week away from exams, and have used WikiBreak Enforcer on my main account. I discovered however that I can still edit from here and the temptation is too great. I have confirmed with my ISP that I am the only customer given this IP. A block until February 1, 2015 is requested for my current IP address. Thanks! 98.74.168.58 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC) User:EoRdE6's IP adress
- Um, HJ? Blocked until 1970? [2] This is odd, the IP is shown as blocked, but the expiry date is obviously wrong. I recall a discussion at VPT a little while ago; you can actually block for a duration of "Schmogelblingen" if you want to, and the block log will dutifully show that block, but the actual duration is zero seconds if there's no valid duration, and the user won't actually be blocked. Here, though, it appears the user actually is blocked [3].... ?! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Unix date. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, after making Floquensock suffer, I was able to replicate this; it happens when you say "00:00 1 February" but leave off the year. However, I don't understand why they're actually blocked; if you set a block to expire before the current date, you'd kind of think it wouldn't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- How odd! I didn't specify a year, and in Special:Block it shows as "Sun, 01 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT". No idea why the log is showing 1970. I suspect a software bug. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- That looks correct; the block is set to expire at the proper time, but the block log is displaying it wrong. I just blocked Floquensock until 00:03 9 January, and the display showed it would expire in 1970, but 30 seconds later it expired on its own. So, a display bug, but the block you placed will expire this coming Feb 1. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- How odd! I didn't specify a year, and in Special:Block it shows as "Sun, 01 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT". No idea why the log is showing 1970. I suspect a software bug. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, after making Floquensock suffer, I was able to replicate this; it happens when you say "00:00 1 February" but leave off the year. However, I don't understand why they're actually blocked; if you set a block to expire before the current date, you'd kind of think it wouldn't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Unix date. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Very bizarre - just a note that even us lowly non-admin types have the same bug. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Waiting for 1970 to come round again...
[4] - could be a long wait.
I think this was a problem with the software being confused by a time of 00:00:00. Whether the block really would have expired at the intended time or not I don't know, but I changed it to 00:00:01 to be sure. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I now see this has already been discussed, above. Oh well, never mind. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Too soon to block?
Hi HJ Mitchell,
I've just undone a minor erroneous edit by Xxnoscoper420xx (talk · contribs) on the releasedate of Uncharted 4, and thought I'd issue a cautionary warning on not using the MOS, but it seems you've already blocked them. Maybe they've harassed you outside of Wikipedia (I hope not!), but otherwise, isn't a block a bit soon, without any warning? Kind regards, --Soetermans. T / C 19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Any username like "xxxyoloswagblazeit42069" should really be blocked on sight—they are, in my experience without exception, throwaway accounts that contribute nothing to the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Stupid user names aside, their only two edits were adding a release date (incorrect, albeit). They can still request to be unblocked of course, and this isn't my battle at all, but I fear this might scare off future editors (even those with stupid user names). --Soetermans. T / C 20:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Username is against policy, the edits are irrelevant in the decision to block; this was ublocked (which is soft, as opposed to uhardblocked) specifically because the user's edit weren't particularly problematic. It will provide guidance on creating another account or requesting a rename. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- The "noscoper" part? It sounds like a gamer thing, not really sure though. Does that user get a message about their username outside of Wikipedia? Because their talk page hasn't been created. --Soetermans. T / C 20:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, the "xxx420" part. It suggests no serious intent to contribute to the encyclopaedia. They'll see the template if they attempt to edit again, which includes instructions on appealing or
eatingcreating a new account with a sensible username. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)- Thanks for explaining, guys. Have a good night! --Soetermans. T / C 21:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd rather eat chIPs84.13.7.223 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Username is against policy, the edits are irrelevant in the decision to block; this was ublocked (which is soft, as opposed to uhardblocked) specifically because the user's edit weren't particularly problematic. It will provide guidance on creating another account or requesting a rename. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Stupid user names aside, their only two edits were adding a release date (incorrect, albeit). They can still request to be unblocked of course, and this isn't my battle at all, but I fear this might scare off future editors (even those with stupid user names). --Soetermans. T / C 20:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 January 2015
- In the media: ISIL propaganda video; AirAsia complaints
- Featured content: Kock up
- Traffic report: Auld Lang Syne
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
50.77.200.121 and Lindsey Stirling
Thank you for blocking this IP address for extended period this time. I would have asked for an indefinite block myself as I am not sure that 1 month will be enough for this character. Should there be a block template added to their talk page? Nyth63 20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- We can't indef IPs. IP addresses get reassigned from time to time, or the person behind them moves on. If they come back after the one-month block, they'll get a longer block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Persistent British railways IP editor
Thanks for the block on this editor. They've just blanked their talk page - I wonder if they think that'll make the block disappear? Do you really want the list of targets and IP addresses on the UK railways page? I think there about 150 articles and at least 25 IP addresses.... I started a list on one of my sandbox pages, and its grown rather a lot, and have been trying to work out which of their earlier edits are still around and if valid... It's a bit like cleaning up after the Lord Mayor's show. You can take a look at Problematic edits - but it is not complete or properly organised yet. Robevans123 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Repeated attacks on the page Buxton Community School
Hello, Harry! Earlier today you blocked an editor, User:Thegmiester, for vandalism. Turns out he was one of a string of vandals at that same article, with a new one popping up whenever the previous one was blocked. Could you take a look at my report at ANI [5] and see if you think any further action is warranted? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, that was fast! --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Six months' semi and a few block ought to do the trick. Undoubtedly kids from the school who think it's funny. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Tarc and Thargor Orlando
This is a matter I consider too trivial to merit comment on the Gamergate sanctions enforcement page. I looked at Tarc's contributions, and the truth of the matter is that they haven't edited that much in "the last fortnight or so," as you put it. Many of those edits are outside the editing scope of the sanctions. There is a discussion I'd like you to look at, though. I'll give you a "freeze frame" target than diffs so you can see what happened.
The exchange I want you to see is here in a discussion I had started, "Why are we citing First Things so much?", questioning the extensive use of a single source in the draft. It looks to me like Thargor Orlando is adopting a warlike stance, in saying "Unfortunately, the well is so poisoned it's better to wait and see if the worst parties are removed from the topic area first. Even questions get you labeled a troll, so right now it's more an awareness thing in hopes some change their tune."
The intent seems to be to goad editors by accusing them of misbehaviour; in fact the discussion up to that point had been fairly civil. Though there are severe differences of opinion over whether the article is correctly balancing reliable sources, these differences were aired in policy terms.
Tarc then responds to Thargor Orlando: "That's been the 8chan/reddit playbook all along; agitate the real Wikipedia editors, run to Arbcom for relief, then hopefully return the atricle to all its Quinn/Sarkeesian/Wu-bashing early days It remains to bee seen whether this was an effective strategy or not, hopefully Arbcom was up to the task of drilling down to what really happened here."
So both editors are discussing disputes over conduct instead of content. My opinion is that it's fair to say both are at fault: Thargor Orlando for the initial sally, Tarc for taking up the topic. There's an implicit assumption of bad faith in both comments. I'm not the admin, so it's not my job to judge, so best of luck to you.