Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:26, 9 November 2008

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Willing to withdraw RFAr request

Read your opinion. I don't completely know how you reach your conclusion, but that's okay. I'm convinced you get the argument I was making, and you know all the details and all the players far better than I.

I submitted the motion in the thought that have an outsider raise it would make it easier to resolve the situation, rather than forcing arbcom to be both "plaintiff" and "jury" in the dispute. But, if you don't think its existence being helpful, I'm happy to withdraw the request (although I'll let a clerk or someone wiser than myself make the actual withdrawing/archiving. ). --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn, no archives as such to put in apparently.--Tznkai (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

@Tznkai: If the "RFAr request" in question is a full request for arbitration—posted at WP:RFAR#Requesting arbitration—then an archive does exist; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. AGK 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a request for clarification/modification/enforcement, not a new case. No archiving necessary. (In appropriate cases, these requests can be archived to the talkpage of the underlying case, but I don't think that is needed here given that the request was withdrawn.) Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your status/Welcome back

Thank you for your kind words. Currently, I'm at a stage where I'm burnt out, though when I try to take a break, my Wikiholism takes over. I'm hoping that's temporary, however. Thanks again, –Juliancolton 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Lil Wayne Death Hoax

Another 4chan death hoax, and, despite the consensus previously reached on WP:AN, no one will block or even protect the damn page.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Kuban Kazak-Hillock arbcom case

Hi, you recently signalled your intent to accept a case on Kuban kazak. It is not my position to direct you to change your intent, however, I would like to ensure that you have read all the statements which were submitted to the case in question after you signalled your intent to take this case on board. In the event that you haven't kept up with developments on the case, could you please review the case again, and consider if it does in fact require arbcom intervention. Thanks. --Russavia 03:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking editors from editing their talkpages

If is correct, I am concerned that such blocks are being made too frequently. I'm wondering about renewing earlier calls for this option to be removed from the block screen. It might be worth getting someone to confirm those statistics and flesh them out a bit. I'd be interested to know of cases where such a block has been used on established users, for instance, and which admins have accrued the most of these blocks so far - if for no other reason than to ask questions to get a feel for when these blocks are seen as appropriate. Although users blocked in this way can still contact the unblock mailing list or the ArbCom mailing list, I'm worried that the community's ability to review blocks has been significantly reduced. WJBscribe (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that this feature causes far more problems than its benefits can offset. How many times is there actually a good reason to use this feature? IMHO, simply locking the page with &action=protect is easy enough, and it causes far less problems. J.delanoy_adds 04:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

With MZMcBride's help, I put together a table of all blocks using the email block or user talk block feature. I'm hesitent to publish a list onwiki, but of the 22,000 blocks made since August 1, over 3,000 have had one or both of those features enabled. Maybe I can screen out the names and publish something tomorrow. MBisanz 04:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So for the last 22,000 blocks, 640 blocked a user from editing their talk page, 2859 prevented them from sending email. Of those that blocked usertalk, the top 10 admins by number of usertalk blocks broke down as

Admin 1: 10

Admin 2: 11

Admin 3: 11

Admin 4: 12

Admin 5: 13

Admin 6: 15

Admin 7: 15

Admin 8: 33

Admin 9: 74

Admin 10: 193

I can do more detailed breakdown by block reason, etc. MBisanz 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of data

With MBisanz's help I have reviewed a good cross-section of these blocks, with especial focus on those admins who have been making most use of the ability to disable talkpage editing. I confess I am surprised by my findings. My conclusion is that the overwhelming proportion of these blocks were used in clearly appropriate circumstances - blocking sockpuppets making "Grawp-style" page moves. As these accounts are know to abuse talkpages once blocked, this seems the obvious case where such blocks were made. Of those blocks I found where this feature should not have been used, these tend to be reversed quickly. As MBisanz's figures about reveal, most admins have made very little use of blocks that disable talkpage editing. Those that have are actively involved in dealing with Grawp-related vandalism. I am relieved by what I have seen. I think extra codification of when such blocks should be used - especially emphasising for the avoidance of doubt that they are to be used only where abuse of the talkpage is expected, not where it is believed an appeal is bound to be successful - may be helpful. Any individual cases identified where talkpage disabling is used to stifle an opportunity for appeal (rather than prevent to abuse) should be treated as serious, and a pattern of such blocks would I hope lead to action against the admin concerned. I would be interested to hear of any such cases.

My only lingering concern is that, if the disabling of talkpage editing is now standard for Grawp-blocking scripts, good faith users may have trouble reporting if they are accidentally caught in such a block. However, in the only case where this happened the block was quickly reversed and further trials were done to modify the script to prevent the problem recurring. Whilst the disabling of talkpage editing remains a potentially dangerous new feature and should be monitored - an output containing only blocks that have used it could be useful - I do not think it is being abused at present based on my sampling of the data. WJBscribe (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Misplaced Pages Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

SA @ ArbCom

Regarding your comment on the aspartame RfArb, Twoggle is referring to the dispute now found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Elonka, ScienceApologist, and Martinphi. Just thought I'd let you know if you wanted to check all that out... — Scientizzle 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Providence Meetup

The next meetup will be Dec. 13, 2008. Drop me a note if you need directions. --mikeu 02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Old abitration case comment

Was reading an old arbitration case page and noticed this. Did the idea of having time served be included in some cases (depending on the circumstances) ever gain traction or even be proposed? Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship, Probation and Editing restrictions

I've just posted this section to WT:MENTOR, and I pointed out there that Misplaced Pages:Probation got blanked in September 2007 (following a discussion started by you on the talk page pointing out that the list was out of date), though it later got redirected to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. Would you be able to clear up the history behind that and do you know what the current practice is with listing probations? Should they be listed at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions or at Arbitration case pages, or both? I'm also trying to clear up where mentorships should be listed (the ArbCom-enforced ones anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus RfA evidence page query

Greetings, I would like to respond to the recent post by Poeticbent on the Piotrus 2 Requests for arbitration evidence page , however I'd like some advice as to the appropriate forum. I wonder whether Poeticbent might have made an unintentional error in posting on the evidence page, rather than the associated discussion page. I say this as he now has two sections (my understanding is that each editor is to have one), the second of which (comprising his recent post) contains neither contains evidence, nor does it cite the evidence I've presented. As such, is it not inappropriate that I respond on the same page? Many thanks. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)