Jump to content

User talk:Luna Santin/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Talk – Sandbox – Suggestions


  This is an archive of past discussion. Please do not modify it.
If you need to continue or revive one of these discussions, feel free to start a new thread on my talk page.


Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
1 « 25 ‹ Archive 26 › 27 » 28



Editing while logged out

[edit]

See Help:Logging in#Editing while logged out. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Rebecca Quick (revisited)

[edit]

Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married

Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.

The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.

Is the above good enough now to note in Quick’s Wikipedia entry that she was previously married? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying at at Talk:Rebecca Quick. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input!
162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

[edit]

I do (honest) understand I have not done my best work at Labh Singh. Your feedback is very much appreciated.- sinneed (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to be at your best when someone is yelling at you. :) I'm hoping we can calm down that other user a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD (from ANI)

[edit]

Further up the thread, I analyzed the nuts-and-bolts of the AFD that WSS was misrepresenting. It's a bit of a convoluted thread, so I just wanted to let you know that I had already done so, when I answered WSS's odd accusations against me. UnitAnode 23:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I figured one more voice chiming in couldn't hurt much, just offering my first impression. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light current

[edit]

Hey, Luna. I notice that you blanked the results of this case shortly after posting them today. Does this mean that they were incorrect? There are a couple of accounts there on the list that you identified as Lc socks that have not yet been blocked... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was pretty silly of me -- was specifically reverting to get rid of this test edit. Something in the back of my mind was nagging at me about using rollback, there. I shouldn't have been in such a hurry. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Seb0910

[edit]

Hi. Could you take a look at the response at User talk:Seb0910? Having not seen your warning there, I had blocked the account for a week. Now he is claiming innocence of every bad edit, including the one where an IP re-did his edit within a few hours, and used a ridiculous personal attack in so doing. I am skeptical but since you have the checkuser data and since you were going to be more lenient with him than I, please review and feel free to do what you think is best, whether that's reducing the block or undoing or leaving as is. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, and for the free hand. As much as I'd like to pretend to be infallible, I had discounted the possibility of multiple users being involved. We've all heard the "My (brother|sister|roommate|dog) did it!" story a few hundred times, probably, but in this case it's actually sounding like it might be true. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP problem

[edit]

I have an IP that you blocked that keeps posting an adminhelp and a helpme tag to their talk, we both have reverted three times (sorry, I forgot about that, I didn't mean to) but the person keeps putting it back. I know it is a school's IP, but what can I do? The user is 64.15.147.70

Thanks--Cubs197 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

usage numbers are in.

[edit]

Please see: Template_talk:Administrator#Standardization_with_top_icon_template —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty! Replied at template talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just to let you know: sockpuppet report with section headers

[edit]

I wanted to let you know that I have submitted a sockpuppet report with headers. I put a note at the biginning of the report which points to the discussion we had about the problem with transclusion and section headers. If this causes a problem, I will be glad to change it back, but let's see how it goes and exactly what problems occur so I can write them up. (I am not submitting the sock report just to test this, I would have submitted it anyway). Here is a link to the report: [1]. --stmrlbs|talk 01:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to convert those to semicolon usages; with section headers, the entirety of the WP:SPI page was broken. NW (Talk) 01:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me how it was broken? I'm trying to write it up and submit it as a bug - but a few more details would be a big help. Thanks, --stmrlbs|talk 01:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious about that, too. I tried adding dummy sections to a case subpage, a week or two ago, and didn't notice any obvious problem once they were transcluded to the front page. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Request

[edit]

Could I get a checkuser on Ricardojose20027? The edits coming from this account are very much like that of indef blocked Dingbat2007. Lots can be found out about the latter user in checkuser, of course. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks unlikely from a technical perspective, though it's difficult if not impossible to prove a negative. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it would help, but the last known IP Dingbat used was 65.49.162.41. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already known, but thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was worth a shot. Thanks for looking for me :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Would you be able to check an IP address against around 2 other user names?

[edit]

By the way, please check your e-mail. :-) Thank you Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe! Hard to say without knowing what I'd be checking and why, of course. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you please check your email, as I've sent it. I hope thats ok. :) Thank you by the way.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied via email, previously. Checking for more in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would like your opinion, too

[edit]

User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Section_Header_SPI_problem
I would like your opinion, too, if you have some time. --stmrlbs|talk 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Luna, how about this? Is there a way that you would like to see the section headers styled so that you can find them easier? Here is an example of section headers with different styles. However, just having the Table of contents with links to the different sections would make it easier to get to the different parts of the different SPIs. What do you think? --stmrlbs|talk 06:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my previous post at NW's talk describes the desired heading levels in (hopefully good) detail. On the subject of the TOC, my own feeling is that including all subsections might actually hamper navigation of the full page -- think how it'll look when we have 10 to 20 cases, each with as many as 7 subsections. Templates like {{TOClimit}} might be helpful in managing that. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the TOClimit template. I didn't know about it. I'm sorry I've taken a while to reply - I just started a new job and have been very busy, but I would like to finish this. How about if I update SPI blank report - no CU and SPI blank report - with CU? Should I make the limit TOClimit 2? --stmrlbs|talk 06:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Luna, I updated SPI blank report - with CU in my own sandbox, but I can't update the original - only administrators can do that. If you could move it over, then we could let it run, and make sure there are no unforseen problems. I also added {{TOC_Limit|4}} to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Subpage_-_Awaiting_Clerk_approval to limit the TOC to only 3 levels. However, the individual SPIs will have the full table of contents. I decided to only make the changes to one blank form. If that goes with no problems, then I will do the blank form with NO CU. Does that sound ok to you? Please let me know when you move it so that I can watch it. Thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 03:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luna, is there a problem with moving the copy I have in my sandbox? I was hoping to have it moved for the weekend, so that I could watch it. Can you let me know if there is a problem with it? Thanks, stmrlbs|talk 03:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oversight help please

[edit]

Hi, a creative editor made Chris Cunningham (disambiguation) to out a BLP subject. It's been deleted but the prior deletion log from apparently the time before still shows the alleged name - it may or may not be, I don't know. I'm looking for the content to be oversighted so Wikipedia remains clear of any wrongdoing here. The BLP subject gets regular death threats and conceals their identity; they have confirmed they wish to keep their identity concealed as well. -- Banjeboi 05:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the summary from public view; if that's not adequate, an email to oversight-l is probably in order. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perfecto, thank you! A lengthy OS report has been filed by J Vanderberg. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration filed

[edit]

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list.  --Lambiam 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I appreciate it. Might comment on the request at some point, though I'm pretty busy for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sangovengence

[edit]

Hey, can you take a look at this user page and its included image? The editor herself hasn't edited for 2 years now, and I'm concerned she's included too much personal information on her user page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... I'll forward this to functionaries-en for more input. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock of Biaswarrior?

[edit]

This one is quacking and being disruptive to boot. Enigmamsg 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... the name in particular is eye-catching, but I don't see any obvious technical evidence connecting the two; looking at recent findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biaswarrior, it looks like the waters are muddying a bit, lately. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MagicKirin sock?

[edit]

Please check User:Tannim1 (contribs), probably a sock for User:Tannim/User:MagicKirin. --JRSP (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious account(s) to be checking against, but WP:DUCK seems to apply; blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokerdance

[edit]

Just making sure you see my comment at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pokerdance.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I did. Thanks! – Luna Santin (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research

[edit]

Luna Santin,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case. Congraluations on being granted the Admin mop, and we are confident the group made the right decision in your case!

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.


Take the survey


Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.


CMUResearcher (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tannim1

[edit]

After extensive discussion with him, I have unblocked Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hopefully he will spend his time editing, not arguing. Fred Talk 14:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

[edit]

Blocked user is evading an IP block

[edit]

Hi Luna,

I just wanted to let you know that the user By78 has circumvented his IP block and has resumed his disruptive edits for which he was banned. I will be submitting an official sockpuppet investigation but I thought I'd let you know first. See [2]

Vedant (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked that IP; thanks for the heads up! – Luna Santin (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the official stance on this is here, but shouldn't the block on his main account (By78) be extended now? He clearly has not learned his lesson about ban evasion and sock puppetry. Personally, I feel that another week will make the message "sink in" as thoroughly as it should. GSMR (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking action Luna but I am forced to agree with GSMR here. Evidently By78 has not learned his lesson or the concept of contributing constructively and if he has it doesn't appear to me that he has not made any efforts to do so. Vedant (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't quibble over it too much, but given the current IP block(s), extending an account block strikes me as more symbolic than practical. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive6#Stacked reports

[edit]

Any chance I could persuade you to run the missing check and block?—Kww(talk) 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so delayed... looks like you're referring to this comment, which in turn refers to Havingatypicalemotionalupset (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who looks to have been blocked? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit]

User:Luna Satin2

[edit]

someone got around the checker ;) Jack Merridew 14:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Same as Tannim1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Tannim2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Thanks for the heads up. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

Stacked reports

[edit]

I never felt like it got concluded properly, but decided that if I pushed harder I would just make things worse. Feel free to look over the situation and push for a conclusion if you think one is achievable.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 month School Block

[edit]

Thanks for that...NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.15.147.70 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the inconvenience; I trust we'll avoid the problems that led to that block, in the future? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wer're going to keep that guy away from computers/creating account(s). --64.15.147.70 (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Range block check

[edit]

User:Prophaniti has been socking around his block. Enigmamsg 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... does look like some socking is going on, but that's quite a large range to block. Would semi-protection be adequate, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's the alternative if semi-protection is not feasible. I just blocked another of its IP sockpuppets. Enigmamsg 06:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

Primary/Secondary Sources

[edit]

Yes I understand the policy, however, how is a secondary source better than a primary source? A primary source being the film Blank Check. See Blank Check Part 1 on youtube, 5 minutes and 14 seconds in.

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.

As a general rule, modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available, as well as seeking new ones, because primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions, and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. On the other hand, most undergraduate research projects are limited to secondary source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebin (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with primary sources, in the context of Wikipedia, is that they often need to be interpreted to be of much use, which will often run afoul of Wikipedia:No original research. A common criticism of Wikipedia is that "anyone can post anything", and it would be quite unfortunate if that were entirely true -- our readers would have no way to ensure the veracity of our texts -- and so as a community we've developed these sourcing requirements over time so that we can strive to be sure that our content is accurate, maintainable, and encyclopedic. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the golden standard here is not truth, which is so often subject to interpretation, but verifiability, which is much less so. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. It is better to be false and have a source that someone else interpreted than to be 100% true that everyone can see with their eyes. Makes sense.Joebin (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a fine straw man. My point is more along the lines that it's better to rely on mainstream expert opinion than on personal anecdotes from John Q. Internet Detective. I'll believe your claims have expert weight when you're able to provide some expert sourcing. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

Great power.... yet again

[edit]

I'm sorry but we are having a bit of a problem in the Great power article.... again. And there is a slow moving edit war that has been going on for a couple of weeks. Is there a chance that you could help. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

[edit]

I don't know how often you check the account, so placing a reminder here.—Kww(talk) 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied via email, previously. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby

[edit]

Hi LS, would you be willing to help us out with checking Scibaby socks? Nishkid has been doing this but he's not always around. I realize this could put you in a risky position so I would understand if you'd rather not, but we could use some help out here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could try, but I doubt I'd be able to keep up, these days. =\ Anywhere in particular I might be able to do some good? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer to help. Generally what happens is that regular editors and admins of the affected pages report the socks to a checkuser, then the checkuser confirms and makes the block. So you wouldn't need to actively monitor any pages. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit]


User:PasswordUsername

[edit]

Hi there. I see that you deleted this userpage as a U1, before restoring it. I had earlier declined the speedy as I wasn't confident of the link between the two users. It was then brought to my attention on my talk page that there is an ongoing ArbCom case, WP:EEML, in which both User:PasswordUsername and User:Anti-Nationalist are listed as involved parties. I've offered to watch the page to see that it isn't vandalised in the interim, which is how I saw your involvement. I just thought I'd bring this to your attention as well, in case you didn't know. Cheers! GedUK  09:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hm. I hadn't been aware this was under public discussion. Generally happy to abide by consensus on the matter. I did figure playing it safe was the right way to go; I prefer to take users' privacy concerns at face value, unless there's a clear reason to suspect foul play, and I figured arbcom shouldn't have any trouble referring to the deleted revisions, if they're needed. Some tangentially related revisions have also been oversighted, though those can also be accessed if needed. The number of casual name drops seems problematic, given the user's expressed wish to avoid them. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I'm taking the link between the users at face value (it seems to be generally accepted?); if that's not the case, I may need to eat my hat. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no reason to think they aren't the same person. Maybe I should have AGFed, but deleting a userpage seemed rather overkill, a simple redirect would probably do. I didn't realise there was oversighting involved, which might explain the reasoning. I didn't know about the ArbCom issue at all at the time I declined the speedy, and whilst obviously ArbCom could see the deleted pages, I personally think that we don't want to fan the flames by deleting pages that may be under discussion. Anyway, for now, I'm quite prepared to leave it to ArbCom, and whatever your judgement is. GedUK  10:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logicus

[edit]

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logicus. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Redking7 still requesting unblock

[edit]

Hello Luna. On Sep. 18 you re-enabled editing for indef-blocked user Redking7. Could you take a look at his talk page and see if you are inclined to either lift the block, or restore the talk page protection? I don't perceive any forward movement. (He seems unconvinced that he did anything wrong). Regarding the new sockpuppetry dating from November 4, he says "After I was banned, I had no choice." He did spend an entire year being very stubborn on the issue of the Taiwan consulates and apparently resisting all advice. If he is ever going to change his attitude, I don't expect a quick learning curve. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70.241.118.59 is still anon vandal

[edit]

70.241.118.59 was blocked for 31 hours by you back in October 2008. For the past six months (May to November 2009) it has still been used only as an anonymous vandal. I believe it should be blocked again, for a longer time -- maybe 31 months instead of 31 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldin raigmore (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC) --Eldin raigmore (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long replying, looks like I missed this thread. Taking another look at this, I agree they've been up to no good. With only one recent edit, though, I'm not sure if I'd feel right blocking, just yet. I'll try to keep an eye on them, though, and would certainly be willing to consider blocking if they keep up their unfortunate behavior. Thanks for the heads up! – Luna Santin (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit]

Canvassing thread

[edit]

Luna, I'm having trouble reconciling your comment here with the rest of the thread. The only engagement from DaleJenkins was during the previous incident, back in August. During this one, he contacted all the participants that had !voted delete in the previous discussion. I do not see this as a misunderstanding. If you think no action is necessary, then that's fine, but I want to make sure we're all on the same page as to the facts.--chaser (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I can manage it, I try to put a lot of stock in orienting people to our practices before hitting them over the head with clue-by-fours; I'm assuming here that the user is unfamiliar with Wikipedian expectations about notifying discussion participants. In real-world politics, it's commonplace to notify "your" side only -- think of political newsletters, and so on. That the practice is generally unwelcome in this community might come as a surprise to someone who's more experienced in other scenarios. I don't see much risk assuming good faith, here, either, since people generally appreciate it and the number of times such faith can reasonably be extended is pretty low, once best practices are explained. I should mention that I agree with the actions I've observed, here: notifying other users, remarking on the discussion, and working to educate regarding community expectations.

All of that is, of course, just my take on things. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in view of the additional details provided since your initial scrutiny, and as no further admin. has yet commented, would you be able to take a further look at this? Leaky Caldron 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... thanks for keeping me informed of newer developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

[edit]

Hi, your comments at ANI regarding my actions are appreciated, over and above my own personal interests I aim to have the interests of the Wikipedia as a priority, best regards to you from Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more chance to apply lessons from meatball:DefendEachOther. ;) Glad I could help. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

[edit]

Special:Contributions/Fäkalienharald_beim_Onanieren! and Special:Contributions/Für_eine_Enziklopädie_ohne_Entlínkt Can you look into it? Thanks, Enigmamsg 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:Fäkalienharald scheisst flüssig! and User:Fäkalienharald beim Wixen!, already blocked. I'll poke around a bit more, and will report back if I find anything interesting. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crappon

[edit]

Thank you kindly for the unblock. Rest assured I have no particular interest in discussing any member of the Gyllenhaal family nor Madonna in the near future. Crappon (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we got that one cleared up! Feel free to check out our introduction for newcomers to learn more about contributing on Wikipedia, if you like. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Requested

[edit]

Hello again. I believe that I am being dragged into an edit war at Great power and I really don't wish to be in this situation. The argument has been going on and off of the main article and back to the talk page for the past few months and it has restarted on the article again. The crux of the issue is this. Should an image of the G8 members be inserted into the article. Those wanting the addition wish so because it shows economic power & status. Those against (including myself) don't wish its inclusion because there are no academic sources stating that being in the G8 makes one a Great Power. If you do not wish to be involved in this article (again) I understand, but please let me know :-) Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to this by the weekend. Sorry to take so long. x.x – Luna Santin (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Luna, I'd like to echo what Phoenix has stated. At first we thought that User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson were just a little recalcitrant with strong opinions but after months of pushing a POV it's pretty clear that their behavior is extremely disruptive. If you have a look at the edit history and talk archive, you can see that they've repeatedly tried to disrupt to make a point, engaged in repeated personal attacks, edit warring, been incivil. I even requested and got page protection for a while to cool things down but that doesn't seem to have worked. I know you're busy right now but we'd appreciate it if you get to if whenever you have time. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

69.114.165.104 returned

[edit]

69.114.165.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You gave this a week block due to {{checkuser}}. Week expired, problem reoccured, I reblocked. Are there other accounts that need (re)blocking per this CU trail? DMacks (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I'd recommend changing that to a hardblock (ie: uncheck "Block anonymous users only") unless a certain someone gives us pretty solid reason to think that won't be necessary. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to hardblock my IP for awhile, I would suggest putting an explanatory note on the user and talk page of my main account. People still try to contact me there from time to time.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea any of the back-story of who's who doing what, but I gotta drop off-line now. Feel free to tighten up the block. DMacks (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit]

You've got mail!

[edit]

Just so's you know. Steve Smith (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by email. Sorry to keep you waiting. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at you. Steve Smith (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your deal, LS? Why won't you respond to my emails?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

Courtesy notice

[edit]

I have unblocked 69.114.165.104 (talk) (a sock of User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back that you had blocked) in response to this AN thread. Would have consulted you prior to the unblock if you had not been on wikibreak. Hope you are enjoying your time in the real world! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thanks for the notice. I'm a touch perturbed that a {{checkuserblock}} seems to have been overturned without consulting a checkuser (not necessarily me), but it's not an argument I'm inclined to get into on this one. I did respond to a few emails about this, previously, but I apologize for not being more available. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]

userboxes

[edit]

do you know of any way to organize userboxes on a user page? I have tons on my page but I cant find a way to organize them.RIVER 22:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio44 (talk • contribs)

 Done Let me know if you need anything else. @Kate (parlez) 23:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you are awesome!!!--RIVER 22:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio44 (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit]

Sockpuppetry

[edit]

Special:Contributions/Favonian_is_a_bastard! and the assorted pages it was editing. Can you check for any other socks, and then let me know what the master account should be? I can then tag the userpages.

Also, I sent you an unrelated e-mail a few days ago. Enigmamsg 16:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bump. Enigmamsg 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry to take so long replying. Just found it. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

[edit]

Season's greetings

[edit]
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.


In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.


Best, Risker (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

[edit]

Happy New Year

[edit]
Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

[edit]

Crazy Horse

[edit]

I could have sworn I pressed the first undo button... Anyway, thanks for catching that. :S Invinciblechampion (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It's easy enough to miss those sorts of things. Thanks for your help! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're an admin, perhaps you can help me. I made this account four years and some months ago, and I don't really like the name... I'd like to get it changed to VirEximius, however I don't know if this is allowed (that is Super Man in Latin, I'm not sure if that breaks policy or anything.) Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated, and I hope to be more active on wikipedia. Invinciblechampion (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a long tenure, indeed. Doesn't look like the username "VirEximius" is taken, so you can probably get that changed at Wikipedia:Changing username. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar! :D Is it just me or is there an abnormally large amount of vandalism today? --Brandon5485 01:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could do that for you. :) As far as vandalism goes, there's always tons. Goes with the scale of the wiki, unfortunately. I suppose schools with longer Winter vacations are getting back into session, if they're not already in full swing, which tends to bring in a bit more. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to say...

[edit]

RUM. 98.220.129.79 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tombaker321

[edit]

Hi Luna, thanks for carrying out the check on this case, just searching for a bit of clarification; did you purposely decline to check Love dance of scorpions (talk · contribs), and check PeshawarPat (talk · contribs) instead (which is fine), or did you misunderstand what I wrote in the endorsement (namely that Love dance of scorpions should be checked, but that PeshawarPat should not)? Either way's fine, just wanted to clear this up. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LDOS I specifically declined (though I'm open to second opinions), but PP showed up in some of my early checks of other users and so seemed to warrant a further look regardless. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, no problem then. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have given my feedback concerning the lack of substantiation for the requested checkuser, from an editor with a long sheet of interactions with myself. Since the checkuser was committed to, I have no concerns about its going further in examination. That said I believe this case should now be closed, but is stuck in the wrong queue. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving OR noticeboard

[edit]

I see you archived the request for information about the original research policy as it relates to WrestleMania 23. I did not receive an answer from anybody regarding original research, so the archival was not helpful. If one is not allowed to ask at the OR noticeboard, where does one get an outside opinion specifically about accusations of original research? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice I provided links to at least two other venues where the exact same topic was already under discussion, during my archival; if there is some novel original research question at hand, I have no doubt that interested editors will be smart enough to follow such a prominent link. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening IP

[edit]

Hi Luna. A bit concerned about the implied threat here. Looks clear this IP has no intention of contributing constructively. Anything you can do? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alls well. Sorted by User:Ckatz. RashersTierney (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the heads up. Looks like I've got another thread about this, below, but it's good to see this bit, at least, seems to be sorted. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PoV problem at “Austrian School”

[edit]

Over at “Austrian School”, we have a couple of editors trying to have a criticism presented in non-neutral language:

I carefully explained the problem after the edit by Lawrence Khoo and before the edit by BigK HeX, using three sorts of statements:

There is, of course, a difference between identifying an actual feature and asserting that the feature is bad, and merely claiming that a bad feature is had. Consider these three claims:

  • One criticism was that Gerald Ford had pardoned Richard Nixon.
  • One criticism was that Pete Seeger was a communist agent.
  • One criticism was that Pete Seeger was ostensibly a communist agent.

The first is of course a plain fact; whether one agreed with Ford or not, he was criticized for something that he clearly did. The third is also a plain fact; whether Seeger was a communist stooge or not, he was criticized as if he were one. It's the second that's problematic. It looks like the a criticism of the first form, implying that Seeger were a stooge and were criticized for it.

There was no response other than the reversion by BigK HeX. —SlamDiego←T 17:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted at the NPoV Noticeboard. —SlamDiego←T 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance I'd suggest a rewrite of the full sentence, something along the lines of what seems to be in place currently ("Critics claim that..." or some such); gets the point across without taking sides. I'm a big fan of Raul's Razor, personally. Seems to be in hand for the time being? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block-evading IP of indef blocked users going around giving out barnstars

[edit]

This IP [3], whom you recently blocked for being a sock of indef blocked User:Lceliku, has been giving out barnstars to encourage his fellow nationals [4]. Is this acceptable? The way I see it, as Lceliku was indefed for TOV, he shouldn't be allowed to go around evading his block and giving out barnstars or making any other kinds of edits. Otherwise we are encouraging the block evasion. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP above mentioned gave me a barnstar and after that was deemed a SUSPECTED sock of Lceliku and blocked for two weeks. There is no proof that this user IS Lceliku, in addition he got blocked after he gave the barnstar. I accepted the barnstar even though Athenean tried to revert my user page and discussion page breaking the 3RR rule through these edits: [5] and [6]. I think it's in my right to accept a barnstar from a user who has not been blocked yet, and also report who trolls my user page and talk page, i.e. Athenean.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP in question is being used for block evasion; consider this a {{checkuserblock}} if you like. As far as this barnstar goes, it seems like a silly thing to edit war over keeping or removing, even if I'm not sure why you'd want to proudly display an award from a user not in good standing. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! The IP is SUSPECTED of being a sockpuppet (per this [7]). We don't know who this person is, we just suspect he is the sock of user:Lceliku. As far as I don't have any proof, I'll gladly accept an aknowledgement from someone I don't know. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already confirmed the IP is being used for block evasion in my role as a checkuser. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

[edit]

Xtinadbest

[edit]

The sockpuppet investigation is hanging after the checkuser but before it gets closed, and I've learned not to add socks when they are in that state. Can you take a look at Believeyouidon't (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Looks pretty obvious to me, as it is revisiting only Xtinadbest articles. Isn't there some kind of IP block that can be applied here?—Kww(talk) 03:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely match. I'll add it to the SPI. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

issues

[edit]

I appologise for our confused interactions on my talk page. If I had noticed the Petitio principii in your original comment [(relevancy part)] right away, then we could have avoided the run through (I think). I'm afraid I had not clearly laid out there how the two comments were related. My complaint against relevancy was that the previous issue had been dealt with previously, and would not have been brought up again except by a fisherman, who did just that [here]. The current block would not have taken place without the fisherman, and therefore saying that its having been brought up is relevant to the current situation is begging the question of how it first came up. The fisherman instigated a viscous cycle. The Petitio principii is a logical fallacy, which firstly means it can be hard to spot. Thank you for coming by anyway; sorry for the confusion/welcome to my world. =) --Neptunerover (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I've been trying to hit on the other points you brought up in the rest of your post (how I percieve "them"as egging me on) at the bottom in the ANI regarding me [[8]]. Thank you for your help with what facts I need to marshal . --Neptunerover (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

[edit]

Checkuser Might Be Needed

[edit]

Having some trouble with User:Mistaknleytaken and User:ImaSteveWillfan vandalizing a page they created. Seems both are new accounts and both are making the same general edits. My Duck-o-Meter is off the charts with this one. Could you do a CU and see if they are related? I will keep an eye on them. Thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add User:Anotherdaygoneby, also making vandalism edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add User:Havingfuneveryday....definite sockfarm. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it; I set a few blocks, but I'm a bit short on time at the moment. My block log should suffice as record-keeping for now, I hope. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Much appreciated! That should keep them from coming back. Again, thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"War on terrorism"

[edit]

Well, it's a war on a concept, so it cannot be interpreted literally, hence the scare quotes. It's like saying that the US declared what was named "war on terrorism", but by omitting most of it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal level, I think you've got a strong point; from an encyclopedic angle, though, I'm not comfortable suggesting that some wars are more or less "valid" than others. By all means, criticisms of the war's vague scope should be detailed in the War on Terrorism article. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure

[edit]

I frankly don't give a damn about GoodDay's self-appointed PC police vigilante stance about politics and religion which he concerns himself with, an agenda to atheism and republicanism. That's okay...he can have an agenda to push and take whatever side he wishes and not call it inappropriate in any situation. He can also escape into his little world of ice hockey and let that be the sand his head is stuck in. I don't care for him and his so-called righteous crusade to kick me out of Wikipedia. He spends as much time, if not more than me, engaged in fruitless and irrelevant discussion on pedantics rather than constructive building of Wikipedia. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UW-block

[edit]

You forgot to add that template on User talk:136.242.105.123's talk page. I've done this for you. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Luna Santin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK004 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP editor 74.59.88.57 is back

[edit]

Sure enough, as soon as the two week block on his IP expired, indef blocked user:Lceliku is back, provocative as ever [9]. Athenean (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're already blocked; thanks for the heads up, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article you previously commented in is up for AFD again

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

[edit]

Something strange happened while you were out...

[edit]

A block you imposed on User:81.137.221.153 back in 2007 appears to have resurrected itself. This anon was being generally disruptive, and has a long history of such behavior; I reverted his edits, warned him, and was considering whether an AIV report was needed, when the pink block tag appeared on the IPs contributions page. I was about to leave it when I realized that it was a three month block from 19 June 2007 that was showing as "current". I thought this a bit strange, looked around the block logs and couldn't find anything that corresponded to a block of that IP on 13 February 2010.

Anyway, I thought this was odd enough that I should mention it somewhere; for lack of a better idea I reported it at AN/I. I thought you should know about it as well, since it was your (long expired) action that popped up out of nowhere. As I said in my post at AN/I, it's probably not a big deal, maybe a software glitch or something. But then again, as someone else suggested, it could just be that the Wiki is becoming self-aware ... ;) Cheers! Wine Guy~Talk 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

[edit]

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

[edit]

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *YES! 10:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have email

[edit]

... although rereading your comment that spurred it I may have misinterpreted your meaning. If that is the case, no worries; if that is not the case, no worries, just let me know if you would like anything else. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

[edit]

I may be being silly

[edit]

but the work you did to suppress the item in the history... the accusation of child abuse is still present (or I can see it!). Gosh did you spot something else in that load of vandalism too? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics, Religion and Her (song)

[edit]

I have initiated a discussion here. I thought you might want to weigh in since you protected the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/User on PCPP

[edit]

Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of PCPP (talk · contribs).--Asdfg12345 01:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

[edit]

Possible sock of UTYVB7

[edit]

I notice you blocked a bunch of socks of User:UTYVB7 recently. Would it be possible to check to see if User:Trowbridge tim was also a sock of the same account? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it. I notice there's an AN/I thread for this, as well; I'll report my findings there in a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Started an SPI case on this matter. Please assist/advise if possible. Materialscientist (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so I see. I've responded at the SPI case and noted such at AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more sock

[edit]

Thanks for the work on SPs of User:Trowbridge tim. He's created another one Special:Contributions/UTYVB8, so you might want to add that to the heap. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work here. I'm a little curious about how CU works — can you put in the IP address for a user and have it tell you all the edits and logs made by that IP and related ones? Please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checked that one; nothing new I can report at this time, but I appreciate the heads up. Please let me know if you find any more. To Nyttend, checkuser pretty much has three functions: (1) get a list of IPs used by a user, (2) get a list of edits made from a given IP or IP range, (3) get a list of users who've edited from a given IP or IP range. By supplementing that data with WHOIS info, behavioral cues, and so on, we can sometimes figure out a lot and sometimes can't figure out much at all. ;) There's some documentation at m:Help:CheckUser and probably elsewhere, but it's been a while since I read all that. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peeved

[edit]

I did not expect that I would be so irate, since I try not to be wedded to my actions and I had already conceded that Kurt could be unblocked - without further reference to me, which is what has happened I note - but I am very irritated by your labeling of the indefinite block as a "frankly ridiculous response..."
I would draw your attention to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community entry for Kurt, and in particular the Special Enforcement Details which state

Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block.

I should be grateful to be enlightened why responding per the wording above, noting that Kurt had transgressed the restriction, is "ridiculous"? Are admins supposed to be the enforcers of policy, guidelines, consensus, restrictions, sanctions or not? You certainly have the right to your opinions on the wording of the restrictions and indeed upon the relationship between Kurt and (some of) the community, but even if you do (and you may not) I assume good faith that they played no part in your decision to unblock him - that you noted both the reservations made at the time and my noting that I would not contest an unblock in that regard. I am thus very disappointed that you should make such a comment upon an action that was properly in keeping with the wording restriction and no other part. I would have hoped you understood that sysops do not have the authority to "interpret" consensus - previously, I would have believed you did.

I will end by apologising for allowing my irritation to show at ANI. That was wrong of me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable editors could oppose the block, yet a careful look at the circumstances doesn't merit the word ridiculous. If it had been merely a matter of stepping over to AFD to follow up on an article creation, then perhaps. But it was more than that. Kmweber had insisted that the restriction did not exist (actually using big red letters) and had been given a final warning in January. At the AFD his input did not address the substance of the nomination: he had written an unsourced BLP which was nominated for deletion as sub-notable. Kurt argued that notability is irrelevant and refused to provide sourcing (which, even if it had been forthcoming, would not have affected the AFD's outcome). So what LessHeard vanU was blocking was a stridently disruptive editor who chose a BLP subject to challenge WP:N, WP:V and a community sanction all at once. For years Kmweber has refused to accept any policy he personally disagrees with. Even if you ultimately disagree with LHvU's action, you can agree that it falls within reasonable administrator discretion? Durova412 18:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally posted the following on Durova's talk page, figuring that it appeared to me to be nothing more than a side discussion and so there was no purpose in cluttering up the talk page here with it. Durova apparently disagrees
"At the AFD his input did not address the substance of the nomination" It's blatantly false statements like this, that go unchallenged, that bother me more than anything. My initial post did indeed address the nomination, point for point:
  • "Coach of questionably notable team" and "Coaches aren't inherently notable" were addressed by "Coach of an annual powerhouse in NCAA D2"
  • "No sources" was addressed by "Sources are only necessary for direct quotes or material that is being challenged" (which is exactly what WP:V has said for years, though certain individuals seem to ignore that).
I can understand disagreeing with me. I can even understand if you had claimed that my counter-arguments did not adequately address the substance of the nomination (for which the proper resolution would be, of course, not punitive action against myself but continued discussion on the AfD). What I can't understand is saying I didn't bother to address the nomination at all when I clearly did. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 22:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To LHVU in particular, I do apologize for the offense. I hadn't meant to direct the "ridiculous" comment to anyone in particular, but more at what I would call an overbearing sanction. I would not have unblocked so boldly if not for your earlier statements regarding such. And, most definitely, I don't think you owe me an apology, but I appreciate the sentiment all the same.

As a more general reply, I think it's useful here to distinguish between procedural due process -- "the sanction says block indef, so we block indef!" -- in which following procedure to the letter is the only guarantee of fairness, and substantive due process, in which procedures themselves are subject to scrutiny. Imagine, if you will, a courtroom in which defendants are barred -- punished, even -- for representing their interests, or even for speaking when their interests are at stake. Sounds corrupt, no? I understand why Kurt was banned from WP space, and I'm not going to argue against that at this time, but... banning Kurt from discussions where he rightfully has an interest in speaking seems needlessly punitive.

Think about it: why is this sanction in place? To keep Kurt from stirring up trouble in WP space, right? The mere act of commenting on this AfD, specifically for an article he wrote, could hardly be called "stirring up trouble" by any reasonable person. Multiple users have expressed a belief that a user should be allowed to speak at an XfD for a page at which they were a major contributor. If Kurt takes that opportunity and wastes it, then so what? Interpreting the value of his comments is rightfully the prerogative of the closing admin. We as a community are better off doing the just thing. If the comments themselves are disruptive, we can limit him to one comment, limit him to some sandbox like a talk page section or transcluded subpage, we can issue escalating blocks if he's really a pain in the ass, but simply issuing an indefinite siteban for the first infraction, without any warning, is too harsh.

Ultimately, I had to ask myself, "Am I okay with seeing someone sitebanned for commenting on an AfD they have a legitimate interest in?" Obviously enough, the answer was no. I'm not. Not without warnings. Not without escalation.

I'm not asking to overturn the sanction, here. I am asking that we treat Kurt not as a "problem" to be solved but as a human being to be treated with decency and fairness. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the considered response. In reply, I would comment upon the role of administrators as both the vehicles of consensus (as expressed in policy, restriction wordings, or the conclusion of a discussion) and of the "experienced editor" scenario. Acting as a sysop there is a fairly simple choice; you can enact the consensus, or you can choose to do nothing - but you cannot vary or over-ride the decisions of others (unless there is an WP:IAR rationale, of course). As an experienced editor, you can try to change the existing consensus by detailing inequities and proposing better solutions - but within the available processes. You cannot, however, do both at the same instant. If there are inequities apparent when processes are enacted in good faith, then address them and not the process. Since I felt it within my admins remit to act per the wording of the restriction, I do not feel that I should be party to the resultant discussion over its appropriateness; but whatever the outcome I will act within it if again requested.
I also feel that you deserved an apology, since it was remiss of me to complain of the apparent attitude within comments made, and yet act like an arse while doing it. That you felt there was no need for an apology speaks better of your disposition than mine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luna I noted his block log with a 1 second block... to state that his previous block was indeed not ridiculous; and to mention that now that he is aware of the ban, if he wishes to edit again, he ask for a review on the ban or be blocked indefinitely. Main reason for this is Kurt loves to take things like your comment way out of context... to make it appear there wasn't consensus for his ban... and by extension any further blocks to his account later on. If he truly thinks that the community is fine with him editing AFDs relating to him, then he can ask for a review on the ban to state that. I've left a notice on his talk page pointing him to this post. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luna_Santin/Archive_26&oldid=1166521757"