Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 7 January 2015

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Request

Since you handled a complaint about me recently, I thought you might handle a complaint from me.

A while ago I asked WPPilot not to post on my talk page. Well, he's now very, very angry at me, and he keeps dropping little unsigned notes there tonight, even though I reminded him about not posting there. Could you drop him a note and ask him to stop, it's getting annoying being interrupted as I'm working.

Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:BMK, I can't find where you actually literally asked the user to stop posting, I may have missed it. (There's this edit summary, but half the people don't read 'em.) I've put a note on his page. That said, I think you knew it was tactless to do a minor edit on his userpage, the way the situation was. Bishonen | talk 12:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

BMK: I tend to agree with Bish. She's asked him to step away; if you give him a wide berth, he should have no reason not to the same, and if he doesn't, we'll set Bishzilla on him! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit to the user page was completely unintentional on my part. I renamed a file on Commons, and a bot automatically renames the file on all the wikis it's used on. I had no idea it was on WPP's user page, and was chagrined when I saw it on my contribs. (The bot uses the ID of the editor making the name change.) I agree that if I had done it intentionally, it would have been a crass and tactless act. BMK (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry, BMK. I'm not at all at home on Commons, and was surprised to discover today that by nominating a file for deletion there, I had also "edited" somebody's userpage, indeed I'd said a mouthful there. I wish the bots would at least let us know when they've posted in our name. (As Twinkle does here.) Bishonen | talk 11:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

Yes, I know, I'm an admin on Commons too. My comment about giving them a wide berth wasn't a comment on that, just advice that I often give to warring parties—to put it another way, now that he's been asked to leave you alone, it would just be wise to avoid giving him a reason not to. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'll do my best to follow that advice. BMK (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to "give him a wide berth" when he responds to my reply to a third party's comment on Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey with near personal attacks. BMK (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's a clear escalation and not directed at improving the article. I've blocked him for 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Momin_Khawaja

I noticed that you made a page protected Momin_Khawaja. Why not be fair and undo all changes made today January 4, 2015 and revert it back to 03:03, 30 November 2014 version . This is a case related to the recent US torture program and there might be somthing going on (more than what meets the eye).....just my 2 cents!

I recommend you make this suggestion at Talk:Momin_Khawaja. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ford N-Series tractor

I see that you declined the Temporary Semi-protection request. Since all of the vandalism has come from a single IP address, should the request have been for a Temporary User block via Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? He has undone the same changes and variations at least 4 times but not always with the Undo link. Nyth63 22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nyth83: They've only edited the page three times over the space of three days. That's not enough disruption to justify any admin action. I'd suggest you try talking to them (if the IP address has stayed the same for three days, it might well be static) and only requesting admin intervention if things get out of hand. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Their nonsense started on Jan 2 and they have edited a total of nine times if you look at the page history. I have engaged them with warning templates on the IP user talk page and they have also been in communication on the article talk page. Rather belligerent though. They have been quiet for a couple of days now so maybe they are done. Nyth63 17:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

As an experienced AE admin

As someone I know to be an admin experienced in dealing with arbitration enforcement requests, I would be interested to hear your views on whether you think that the dispute in the Acupuncture topic area that is currently subject to an arbitration case request could be successfully dealt with by enforcement of the pseudo-science discretionary sanctions. Please comment at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture (input there from other AE admins stalking this talk page is also welcome!). Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that I've left my thoughts there, for whatever they're worth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion of User:László_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm

László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 02:50, 1 January 2015 for disruptive editing, but this editor is evading his block by using the static IP 213.114.147.52. The IP 213.114.147.52 was blocked in the past: also for being "László Vazulvonal of Stockholm editing logged out" . He is adding unsourced infromation to biograhies of living people (e.g, ) 109.185.154.159 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what it has to do with me, but that seems pretty slam dunk. I've extended László's block to a fortnight from today and hard-blocked the IP to match. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WPP banned

I think your in error about the WPP ban. He did not violate the request to post on the other users page, the guy was answering a reply on a project talk page. Sure seems random and unjust. 172.56.6.253 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Quack! Bishonen | talk 15:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

I am just a fan, and have been watching the users photos for years. Rather odd to me..172.56.6.253 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More pages on or before January 6

Drew Brees and Clown? --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Drew Brees extended to indef; Clown upgraded to long-term semi. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Station fire

That IP is at it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked them for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

More socks from the same user

Hello again, the same sockmaster I mentioned here last week and whose socks you blocked, is back again with more socks, KanishkaKagan and Amir.Temur, continuing exactly the same edits as all the previous socks on Uzbek and Tajik related articles. It's getting quite tiresome as the sockmaster obviously has a lot of time () and is just pushing out new socks and reactivating sleepers. I started a discussion at ANI about it here .Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked two. It's probably worth filing an SPI with a complete list just for housekeeping and future reference. Also, links are your friend! {{noping}} or linking to talk pages/contributions rather than userpages will avoid alerting them if that's what you're worried about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the information, I didn't know that. Very helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:UAA and User:Tuscgenlibrarian

Near as I can tell, I think the only time we've interacted was regarding the failed RfA nomination concern this past fall, voiced here on your talk page. So, I think of you as uninvolved with me on this topic, and given your activity you are knowledgeable in WP:UAA affairs.

Recently, I came across User:Tuscgenlibrarian, and given that the account was editing Tuscaloosa Public Library, it seemed highly likely that the account is being used to represent the library. Given that, I placed a {{uw-coi-username}} template on their userpage. Subsequent to that, another editor (doesn't matter who; my point here isn't about someone else, but about this account) removed the warning, and indicated at WP:UAA that the account is not a blatant violation of the username policy. There's been some discussion about it at WP:UAA, but again I'm not here about one or more users.

I am here to try to understand where my brain is failing on this, if indeed I am incorrect. My reading of WP:ISU, where it states "Usernames that are names of posts within organizations", is that accounts that imply a position within an organization rather than indicating a particular person are not acceptable. I can make an argument that "Tuscgenlibrarian" could mean the genealogy department library (they have such a department), i.e. it's implied in the name. I think it proper that to avoid this, clarifying the issue in the process, the account should be renamed as there is an implication this is a shared account.

So, if I'm wrong on this, how is this not implying a shared account? I'm quite boggled on this; this seems very pro-forma to me, and an obvious softblock/rename. I look at User:Marketing_Denver_Christian_Schools and think "ok that's the marketing department for Denver Christian Schools, block". See similar for User:Verizonemailsupport (e-mail support for Verizon), User:Sematext marketing (marketing dept. for Sematext), User:Canucks.media.relations, media relations for the Vancouver Canucks. Accounts named after positions or departments of companies are not common, but they do happen and the WP:ISU policy seems very clear on this.

I'm not looking for you to take action on this editor, and I'm not asking you to get involved in anything. I just wanted an experienced, uninvolved voice to whack me on the head if I'm wrong and show me how I'm wrong (assuming I am). I'm not getting it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, in practice, like many things, the answer is "it depends which admin you get". In principle, I agree with the decline at UAA. As you've identified, the key is whether the account represents an organisation or an individual at the organisation, since we explicitly allow usernames like "Harry at Acme Inc". Given that the username is "Tuscgenlibrarian", not (say) "Tuscgenlibrary", it seems reasonable to conclude that it represents an individual librarian rather than multiple librarians or the library as an institution. Of course, if their edits are problematic, that's a different matter and can be dealt with regardless of their username. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) WP:UAA is for simple, uncontroversial cases. Anytime there is a disagreement, it should be taken to WP:RFC/N. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't see it as controversial. There are many librarians at a library, and we're not supposed to allow accounts that identify a position within an organization, which this one does (per WP:ISU). *shrug* Don't care either way, but perhaps the ISU policy should be revised to remove the second bullet point, since we apparently do allow such usernames. *boggle* --Hammersoft (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that people are disagreeing with you and yet you don't see it as "controversial" tells me you don't understand the most basic notions of how discussions and consensus work. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Benoit, I think Hammersoft meant that he wasn't expecting it to be controversial when he reported it, and I can hardly blame him because a more zealous admin might well have blocked the account. An RfC/N might actually be a good idea—it would be interesting to see what the current consensus is. I suspect we'd be a lot less willing to cut the editor slack if they were representing a profit-making company. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Struck my earlier comment; I apologize, I thought I had read "I don't see it as controversial" instead of "I didn't see it as controversial". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)