User talk:Smartiger

Welcome!

Hello Smartiger, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Crafty (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That IP range :/

Y'know, I wish there was, to be honest, but this one guy is causing mayhem again and again and again. There are actually few editors in that entire /17 range (I'm surprised, given what it is) and indeed, most tho' not all of the IP edits are yer man again :( To be honest, he's wasting everyone's time here.

BTW - are you being affected by this block right now? It's not a hardblock so you should be okay. If this ever gets stepped up to hardblock, I'll see you get WP:IPBE enabled first - Alison ^❤ 06:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drama? What Checkuser drama? :-D Yeah, I dunno. What I'm going to do is post a quick note to WP:ANI and unblock-en

lists.wikimedia.org letting them know what I've done and to watch for fallout. But yes, we have to balance visibility/accountability with privacy and the the policy on these matters. I generally try not to associate accounts with IP ranges if I can help it. In this case, the socking and disruption is bad enough to warrant it, IMO - Alison ^❤ 07:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And

Done - thanks for the prod on this one :) - Alison ^❤ 07:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have a look at WP:WikiProject on XFFs, then use this as a starting point for a chat with your ISP's customer support desk? A trivial change on their servers could solve the problem for their well-behaved customers.LeadSongDog come howl 06:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might point out to them the list of other ISPs that support X-Forwarded-For headers. When they see that their peers do it, they tend to take it more seriously. LeadSongDog come howl 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2011 followup

Hi Smartiger, is this the rolling block you were referring to? Since it's been over a year, it might be reasonable to try and lift the section involving you. When was the last time you checked with Alison on it? And what was your original account name? --El on ka 20:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. There is no "section involving me"; I'm on a dynamic IP allocated by IP DHCP, and the entire consumer side of the IP is blocked, and has been re-blocked since. I could ask Alison again, but I see no reason to believe she's changed her mind, and other admins have been merrily upping the ante since. Nor does anyone seem to have bothered to update the policy in line with this practice.

I'd rather not disclose the name of the original account name, and certainly won't do so here, where it would associate that publicly with this account, and that IP. I don;t believe it has an relevance, either, since my concern is with anonymous editing. Smartiger (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, from your end, what would the ideal solution be at this point? --El on ka 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I think "ideal" is many months thataway. Unblocking the entire range, and dealing with any renewed problems case-by-case? Factoring long-term whole-IP blocks into documented policy, in such a way as to close the yawning gap with practice in the other direction? Wiping some of that smug nonsense about anon editing as a "sacred principle" off Jimbo's user page? Honestly, anything other than the "don't do as we do, do as we say" and generally Kafkaesque "substances roll downhill" norm would cheer me up a little, at any rate. Smartiger (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still coming up to speed on the situation, but it looks like another possible solution would be to ask your ISP to improve their headers? If those were fixed, then you could probably resume editing on your other account. Or, would you like to stay on Smartiger at this point? --El on ka 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My other account isn't blocked in any way (as far as I know!), I just abandoned it to general WikiMalaise. If I were still using it, I'd likely never have noticed the block of this ISP, which occurred sometime thereafter. Sorry if I was unclear about that. My current preference would be to edit "casually" as an anon as I was doing for the period in between, at least until such time as I decide to make a more substantial return, if that were ever to happen.

I believe something like that was previously alluded to, and I brought it up with my ISP, and one of their admins made some sort of vaguely positive noises concerning addressing their "rogue" user. I tried to get that admin and Alison in contact with each other, but one or other (or both) evidently didn't follow through. Great swathes of this seem to be completely undocumented and just happen by "senior user" fiat, so I can well understand your getting-up-speed issues. Just getting them written down and scrutinised by community consent would be a large step forward, in and of itself. Smartiger (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alison and NuclearWarfare are both very experienced and competent users, so if they've tried to take a look at this and have not had success, I am afraid that there's not much more that I could do, alas. If it's any consolation, what you're describing isvery very unusual situation, that it appears you just had the sheer bad luck to be caught up with. If I were you, I'd probably followup with Alison or someone with Checkuser access every few months or so and see if they have any other advice. Sorry I can't be of more help! --El on ka 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda called that one on the "experienced editor" front, didn't I? I think it depends on what you call "success"; Alison seems to regard blocking an entire ISP to deal with one user an entirely satisfactory state of affairs; the blocking policy seems to suggest otherwise. I find characterising the yawning gap between the two an "unusual situation" more minimising than consoling, actually. (In that it's not consoling in the least, and is extremely minimising, to be clear.) Smartiger (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes within quotes

I see you got it right per MOS:QUOTE: "When a quotation includes another quotation (and so on), start with double quote marks outermost, and, working inward, alternate single with double quote marks". Sorry for the conflict (if we had decided to follow British English typographical standards for the article, you would have been right, though). Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation within quotes

Please do not move punctuation outside of quotation marks as you have on 4/3 and 4/4. The rules of grammar are pretty clear on this. You can read more about it here Rklawton (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same for your changes today. Thanks! (SEC (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Huh. That's not how I learned it, but as you point out that's what Wikipedia style says in [WP:LQ]. I stand corrected. (SEC (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"The /17 range has been reblocked for 3 months."

As one of the people repeatedly affected by this (as is essentially anyone attempting to edit anonymously from the entire Smart Telecom ISP), I'm not exactly thrilled. All of this is deal with one problem user, right? Is there centralised discussion of this anywhere? There seems to have been a checkuser page, but that was archived almost as soon as you commented there. (Replies for preference to my talk page, please, rather than here.) Smartiger (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked based on Alison and Sir Fozzie's comments that there wouldn't be all that much collateral damage from such a block, as that user is being rather disruptive. If the situation has changed however, to the point that there are more users trying to edit from that range (a checkuser like Fozzie probably needs to check that), then I'd be happy for the block to be lifted. NW (Talk) 16:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply (and for making it here); I gather your own preference would be for a "consolidating" reply on this page. I don't know if the visible-before-the-fact collateral damage has increased, and I'll admit it's only a mild inconvenience for me, as I've this account to fall back on. But it seems to cut across the spirit of the blocking policy, and the idea of open(ish) anonymous editing being a "non-negotiable", as it's tossing the next three months of potential contributions from casual IP editors. Though as several admins have affirmed this action by repeating it, and no-one seems inclined to question or review it, perhaps that practice is in effect starting to change. Smartiger (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that cutting off potential new contributors is a bad thing, especially considering that Smart Telecom has 50,000 land-line customers and 18,000 broadband subscribers (per the article). Could you do me a favor and check out the contributions from the IP range? If a significant proportion are from casual contributors, I'd be happy to lift the block. NW (Talk) 01:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tool link: I'd heard that such a thing existed, but wasn't able to find it last time I looked. If I'm reading it right, there's around 200 edits from the "problem" editor in the period since the last block was lifted, from three different IP addresses, and around 200 that seem to be unrelated (most of them very clearly so, as they're interleaved with those from those three, while those don't change for significant periods). (Only a smattering were my own, incidentally, though I'm pretty "casual" these days myself).

When I mentioned this on Smart's forum, one of their admins seemed to indicate a willingness to look at taking some sort of action against their customer. I'm not sure how committed or thought-through an offer that was, but is there a "channel" that could be pursued down? Smartiger (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Wikipedia:Abuse response is designed exactly for this situation. If you want to use that page to file an official request (maybe talking to Sir Fozzie for backup should you require it), I'd be happy to unblock the range. NW (Talk) 02:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-hah again! The manifold things lurking undiscovered (or forgotten) in assorted corners of WP. Many thanks for pointing that out. I've filed a report, and I'll drop a note to Fozzie and the various previous blockers, in case they have anything to add. Don't feel in any rush to lift the block immediately, if you don't feel that's appropriate; I'm more concerned with getting some sort of long-term resolution. Feel free to add or tweak the heck out of it if I've messed up the format, or omitted key information. Smartiger (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Smartiger. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Abuse_response/84.203.57.220/17.
Message added 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Abuse Response Filing

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 84.203.0.0/17. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation. I will be in contact with you soon about this. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Abuse Response Filing

Hello! I've taken over the case you filed at Abuse Response, regarding 84.203.0.0/17. I'm in the process of contacting the ISP now! Thanks for your report! --ANowlin: talk 01:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I hope you get some traction on that with them. Smartiger (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hi Smartiger, regarding your changes to the Waivers disambiguation page, some of your changes do not appear to be in accordance with policies and guidelines. You may wish to review WP:MOSDAB to see the latest Manual of Style guidance on how disambiguation pages should be formatted? --El on ka 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to just go in and fix than to take the time to explain each line, but when an experienced editor did the fixes, you just reverted them. Why? --El on ka 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making personal presumptions about another editor is not helpful, let's just focus on the content of the encyclopedia. As for my concerns:

First, a Wikipedia page should never be moved unless there is clear consensus for the move. Since there was obviously a conflict, it was inappropriate to change the page's title without discussion.
When a page has a title such as "Doodad (disambiguation)", the top line of the page should be formatted "Doodad is <whatever>."
There should not be an extensive line of text defining a category of list entries.
A disambiguation page is simply an aid in navigation, not a page for definitions.

For more information, please see the manual of style. --El on ka 18:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, since I dislike lengthy disjointed discussions, I've gone ahead and moved the entire thread to my own talkpage, and replied there. --El on ka 18:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for driving me out of an article

Well, Smartiger. You can have Nation all to yourself. I had done a boat-load of heavy lifting on that article. Then you swooped in. Your bossy, preachy style and general way of dealing with other editors is a big turn off. I don’t want to have one God-damned thing to do with any article you are active on and seriously hope we don’t just *accidentally* keep on crossing paths in the future. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun hobby. Perhaps you might try a different tact in the collaborative writing environment that is Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an extraordinary outburst. I think you want to have a long hard look in the WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN mirrors on that one. I completely stand by all my edits and comments on that article; if you're not able to deal with the within-policy contributions of other editors with a degree of calm, you may have not so much the wrong article, as the wrong website. Smartiger (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IP and XFF

I have replied to the question Smartiger relayed at the XFF project about your discussion. I realize it's been a long time, but it may still be relevant. Superm401 - Talk 02:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]