Jump to content

User talk:Courcelles/Archive 88

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90→Archive 95

Mail!

Hey, have dropped you an email - if you could help it'd be great. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't yet acted on it, then don't bother. Just noticed something I missed the first time through so I'm fairly confident I no longer need what I requested. Thanks and sorry for bothering you ;) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Just been sorting through my morning backlog of e-mails. Noted. Courcelles 12:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see any credible reason to unblock him at this time, after edits like [1], I'd be opposed to an unblock for a long time to come, too. Courcelles 13:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
He has admitted to committing the crime, so I'd really like to ask that he be given the chance, and I at least be given the chance of attempting to turn him around. He has been told it's going to be one-strike-and-out, and I am more than willing to let the two of you, and/or any other administrator, monitor his progress closely and issue an indefinite block when required without further discussion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As is procedure, just dropping you this note of the ANI. It can be found here. Please leave any comments you may see fit, including telling me and/or others why Ezekiel shouldn't be given this chance under a mentor. Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

IP question

Can a registered user edit as an IP? Malke 2010 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As long as they're not being disruptive or in violation of WP:SOCK, yeah. I even know of a few admins who tend to do most of their editing without logging in these days. WP:SOCK is the guiding rule, though, so anyone choosing to do so just has to be careful to avoid even the appearance of inpropriety. Courcelles 03:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well in that case, I opened a thread on the Admins OR noticeboard. And an editor has come in to comment and says that he finds the question so irrelevant that he feels no need to log in. Thing is, he's agreeing with the editor on the other side of the OR question, and to the point of using his identical wording for the edits in question. I'm finding it hard to believe that this fellow just happened by. Here's the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#To_Catch_a_Predator Thanks for the help. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, the IP is near the end of the discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see any hard evidence anything untoward is going on there. It's a very long discussion, so if there's a specific sentence that provides the hard evidence, it would be nice to have it highlighted. Courcelles 14:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is long. BTW, I don't think the IP and the other editor are the same. I think the IP is trying to make it appear that he just happened along and decided to comment. I think he might be trying to avoid scrutiny, although why he would need to do that is something I don't understand. I will get the relevant diffs. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Courcelles. This is what I stated about the matter, and other responses will of course continue there. The IP did not use my identical wording. And as I said, "Perhaps the IP's suggestion is similar to mine because the lead is similar? I used the wording that already exists in the lead. Do you never see such proposals that use the same existing wording but slightly alter them? This goes on all the time in dispute resolutions where a compromise is trying to be made. Wanting things your way and your way only is not a compromise." Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've sorted out the comments so that you don't have to read through the entire passage. Here are both comments:

It is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be underage (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons. Flyer22 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
"It is devoted to impersonating underage youth (generally 12-15) and detaining adults who contact them over the Internet for sexual liaisons.". . ..94.200.27.54 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought it strange that the editor said he thought the question being raised was not a serious OR violation, so much so that he didn't see the need to log-in. However, I didn't question him about it until he concluded by using essentially the same language as Flyer22. I'd already compromised on the wording [2][3][4], but when the IP then came back with the nearly identical language, I began to suspect that there was more to things than appeared. This is what prompted me to ask you if it's okay for an editor to come in as an IP to comment. In any event, this is not about having you referee any discussion. It's just about identifying the IP. I think he's either someone I know and has followed me before, or perhaps there's been some form of communication that has prompted his participation. I don't think the IP came by casually. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I again point to what I stated above. The reason the IP "came back with the nearly identical language" is obvious. All one needs to do is look at the lead. This IP clearly did that, even citing a section in the article. That Malke is not familiar with the way a lot of things work on Wikipedia -- even that proposals often slightly alter existing wording, especially in compromise situations -- is not my problem.
In summary, Malke is looking for trouble where there isn't any. Another editor there also confirmed that there's nothing suspicious about the IP, at least in connection to me. Oh... And I am female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
At the end of the day, I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates the IP is doing anything wrong here. I can't run a check just to "identify" the IP, as per Foundational policy, there needs to be, at an absolute minimum, solid grounds to suspect something improper is going on, and even then I couldn't connect an IP with an account without extraordinary need to do so, beyond even the standards to run a check. Courcelles 19:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for checking. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that since CheckUser identifies sockpuppets by their IPs all the time, Courcelles means that revealing an IP as connected to an account is not allowed...without extraordinary need to do so. You can't use CheckUser to publicly say, "This IP belongs to this account." And there's also the matter of dynamic IPs -- IPs constantly used by different people.
Anyway, thanks, Courcelles. Sorry that our dispute made its way to your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Basketball disambiguation help

I created a bunch of articles today about some Australian basketball players. This involved creating a number of articles with (basketball) in the title because a non-(basketball) article already existed. Could you please take a look at the base articles for the following and help make sure they are properly disambiguated?

--LauraHale (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

They all look properly disambiguated to me. Courcelles 13:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Er. The following need disambiguations:

Not sure how to do that for the basketball articles since articles already exist with no disambiguation and in at least one or two cases, the article with that name redirects to an article with out that name. --LauraHale (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you wanted me to look at the base pages, not your new ones. See the documentation of {{about}} for how you do that. Courcelles 03:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I wanted you to fix those. ;) Because not good at that. :D --LauraHale (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Whatever that ticket is, DQ, I don't have access to it. Check your number? Courcelles 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the link is borked - search the ticket number from the regular search interface, and you should be able to see it. At least, that's what happened when he left me a similar notice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Odd, it never appeared ion my new messages flashbar. Okay, replied to. Courcelles 15:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Confused.

Hey! Know you're away, but this ain't particularly urgent (I think), and your talk page stalkers are a good bunch anyway.

Different (new) users, very pro article (apart from some newbie errors- capitalisation, mainspacing a userspace draft then creating a userspace copy, etc), not a copyvio and from what I can see no deleted edits anywhere, under any capitalization. I'm tired, so anything I'm missing? sonia♫ 10:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Batch semi-protection of templates

Hello,

According to this, in Sep 2010 you indefinitely semi-protected a batch of templates from editing, apparently based on the number of transclusions.

Can you please explain the rationale behind this move? Was there a discussion about this or was it your unilateral decision? Site policy and guidelines does not seem to mention this case, and in fact I believe pre-emptive semi-protection is frowned-upon, for good reason.

Thanks. 220.100.16.13 (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Pre-emptive protection of articles is frowned upon, with very good reason. However, in template space, someone has the chance to vandalise 1,000 articles at once, and policy does support preventive protection in these cases, see the policy WP:HRT and the numerous cases through the years of vandals playing games on templates. (WP:BEANS prohibits going further, but specifics aren't hard to find if you're really interested.) Courcelles 15:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Fair enough, although I do find it questionable (of our policy) to allow discriminating against non-autoconfirmed users in cases of pre-emptive protection. I think a full protection would be a better display of good faith.
I welcome examples, I don't see how BEANS applies here. 113.197.147.187 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, full-protection limits edits to around 1,500 people. Semi allows anyone to edit after 96 hours, a much, much lower barrier than passing a request for adminship. This ANI thread would lead you to one of the abusers of template space, though BEANS does prevent me from explaining how templates can be used for such disruption. Courcelles 02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Look, I don't think there is a right answer, and I admit I am biased, but I do think that an important factor is missing from your analysis, and that is that unregistered users (and therefore potential recruits) by far outnumber the rest. Also, it's simply not true that semi allows to edit after 96 hours, because most potential editors are never going to bother to register. They just want to contribute sporadically to an encyclopedia that everyone is supposed to edit. They just don't want to do it so badly as registered users do. And the way I see it, that's not their loss, it's ours.
Either way, what do you think, shouldn't this choice (semi- or protection) be made more explicit in the policy? Either high-risk templates should always be semi-protected pre-emptively, or always protected pre-emptively. Why not mention a transclusion threshold? I can't think of a reason to allow admin discretion on the matter, since pre-emptiveness implies that nobody will ever know what would have happened. 219.111.126.25 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, are we talking philosophy or is there something you'd like to edit, but find yourself unable to? Because if it is the latter, there are a few possible solutions. And as much as IP's are our largest pool of potential recruits, they are also our largest pool of vandals. The cold reality is that any template that is used on 1,000+ pages needs editing so infrequently that the semi always prevents more damage than it prevents good edits, various vandals have shown us time and time again how much damage can be done with the template namespace. We also have one of, if not the, least intrusive registration processes on the internet, you don't even have to give us your e-mail address, it is just username, password, done.
As to why full protection is a bad idea, templates, even edited in good faith, are a pain-in-the-ass, and quite a few editors who are fantastic at understanding their fiddily code are not admins. That's the practical side, on the philosophical side, any time protecting the wiki requires access be limited, it should be limited no more than is truly necessary. This is pretty much the first time I've ever heard anyone try and argue that full protection is preferable to semi, as full restricts access to 1,500 admins who have been here for years and made usually tens of thousands of edits, versus the millions of autoconfirmed accounts who have access after four days and ten edits (or right away through either a local admin granting an exemption, or users coming from other wikis with the global rollback flag). Courcelles 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Zhand38

Hi Courcelles, pls see my post at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhand38. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Gwen. Ran another check. magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: it has said what it can say on the SPI. :) Courcelles 22:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It was helpful :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Something needs to be deleted

Hi Courcelles - a week or two back, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Moral Premise, but I didn't realize that in the course of the discussion the article was moved to Moral premise (without any change in content). Would you mind deleting the article in question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather embarrassing, thanks. Deleted now. Courcelles 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Too bad I didn't notice at the time... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_88&oldid=1171650534"