User talk:JBW

.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This talk page is currently protected due to persistent trolling, by either a child or a remarkably childish adult. If you do not have a Wikipedia account, or have a newly created account, you will not be able to edit this page, but you may post on the page User talk:JamesBWatson/Open instead.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

.

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, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Hedgewars

Hello, I noticed Hedgewars was deleted as you removed many links. Couldn't find any recent discussion on that. Either way, I believe hedgewars should have an article, could you please restore a copy to my user space so that I can work on it? thanks Shaddim (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can, but can you provide any reason to justify doing so? That is to say, any reason to think that, contrary to the conclusion of two deletion discussions, the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, I believe there is enough notability for this game. I will extend the article accordingly. cheers Shaddim (talk)

Yes, obviously you believe there is enough notability, or you wouldn't have made the request. By "can you provide any reason" I meant "can you provide any reason for believing that it is notable". Simply stating that you think so is not very helpful: see WP:ITSNOTABLE. If you know of sources that show more notability than was demonstrated in the deleted versions of the article then you should be able to tell me what they are, and if you don't then restoring the article, after not one but two AfDs and not one but two deletion reviews have ended in the article's remaining deleted, would be questionable. You may also like to read WP:MUSTBESOURCES, if you are not already acquainted with it. I have seen your user page, with its comments about what you refer to as "the infamous 'reliable sources' policy (and the notability policy)" and your comments about what you call "inclusionism" and "deletionists". Are you sure that your request is motivated by knowing of sources which satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than by personal opposition to deletion of articles even if they don't satisfy those policies and guidelines? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will gather reliable sources and will not re-add the article before I come to the decision that the article has a serious chance for surviving a review. Currently, with the article and its history deleted, I can't review the source situation of the old one. (I think it is in general a bad idea to delete articles that way that they can't be reviewed via their history, but thats another problem.) So, could you please restore the article to my user space? thanks Shaddim (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I am happy to temporarily restore articles to user space, but in the case of an article which has been to two deletion discussions, both of which resulted in consensus to delete, and two deletion reviews, both of which resulted in the deletions being upheld, and the article has again been unilaterally re-created, I am reluctant to do so without better reasons. However, since the reason you give for wanting the article restored to user space is so that you can "review the source situation", I have posted a list of all the sources from the deleted article at User:JamesBWatson/Hedgewars sources. I hope that will be of some help to you. To me, it seems that the only one of those sources that even begins to give significant coverage is the gry-online page, but of course you will make your own judgement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I assumed there is indication of notability available in even the article before deletion. While I don't want to argue with you abbout notability, there are other indications of notability like pure usage & citation in common culture. Hedgware is one of the bigger open source games and most likely could have an article. Therefore, restore this article to my user domain that I can work on it and eventually bring it in for review. I think you can't & should not block my intention on working on this article. Shaddim (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you asked that the article be restored to user space because you couldn't "review the source situation", but now that I have made the sources available you want it restored to user space for other reasons.

You are clearly well aware of the notability guidelines, and you must be aware that "one of the bigger open source games" is not one of the criteria. You have said that you "will gather reliable sources", and there is nothing to stop you from doing so: you don't need the text of the deleted article to do that. You say you "don't want to argue with [me] abbout notability", but if you have any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines then you can easily tell me what that evidence is without arguing about it, yet you do not do so.

You are seeking to overturn the outcome of four separate discussions. The onus is on you to provide justification for doing so: I am certainly not going to do so simply because I am told to by someone who asserts that he "believe[s] there is enough notability", that he "assumed there is indication of notability available", and so on, but who after repeated requests does not provide any evidence. I will restore the article if and when you provide justification for doing so based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just because you say that you believe and assume things.

If you believe that what I am doing is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines then you are, of course, free to take this to a third deletion review, but doing so because you personally don't like those policies and guidelines is not a good idea. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you said I'm well aware on the notability guidelines. I will review and expand the full article to the point where it has good chances of surviving a review. If I can't bring it to such state, I will not hand it in and scrap it. So, put it to my userspace that I can work on it. Shaddim (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being an unconstructive blockhead and bureaucrat, I reconstructed the article on my own. Shaddim (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~thnaks again for being an unnconstructive asshead, misusing his administrative powers~~ Shaddim (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC) I apologize for this unneeded confrontational reply in anger on the deletion of the with some work and time invested reconstructed draft article. Shaddim (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddim: OK, I know myself how easy it is to act hastily and unwisely when one is irritated, as you will see if you read my comment in the section of this page headed "Helpme request", so I do understand. Thank you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that we found common ground on the way how we should talk with each other; in the core issue the blocking of user space drafting we have a severe disagreement. I believe, backed by many policies like even g4 of speedy deletion, user space drafting is an valuable and wanted mechanism in WP. Admins should not blocking authors in utilizing it, especially if the author ("me") is demonstratable productive and interested on creating content for WP (which should be clearly proven by my edit history). Shaddim (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddim: Yes, but that is a misunderstanding of what I have said. I have never suggested that user space drafting is not a valuable and wanted mechanism: of course it is. However, saying that something is a valuable mechanism is not the same as saying that it should always be available, no matter what the circumstances. On this occasion I do not believe that it is appropriate, for the reasons which I have already explained at length. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is by no means a misunderstanding. User space drafting is encouraged in wikipedia and not limited by permissions of a council or individual admins. Again, there is no policy preventing me drafting this article. and I will do.Shaddim (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June 18. —Cryptic 07:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddim: You suggested that I had expressed an opinion which I had not expressed. I assumed good faith and described it as a misunderstanding of what I said, but you now deny that it was a misunderstanding. If you claimed I said something that I didn't say, even though you had not misunderstood me, then what was it? I hope it wasn't deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, but I can't think of a third possibility. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I motivated my demand: I said I want to do an draft and evaluate if the article has enough mass to survive an review. You did not gave me the benefit and doubt but outright rejected my demand, obviously not valuing draft works in user space. Shaddim (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

79.78.241.248: short blocks having no effect, suggest longer

79.78.241.248 appears to be not here, what do you think about extending the two week block to one month? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: I agree with you, and if I had been the administrator placing the latest block I would have made it much longer, but once an administrator has made a decision it normally best to accept that decision rather than fighting over it, unless it is clearly an unreasonable decision. However, if the same sort of thing starts up again when this block is over I shall be willing to block for longer. Please feel welcome to let me know if you see the problem coming back. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, if I happen across similar edits from that IP (or close to it). –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evader?

Could you keep an eye on Smeef89? It may well be another sock of User:Danieleb82. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: There is enough similarity in the editing to make me think it probably is, but nothing definite enough to justify blocking. The editing is in a topic area which is clearly much more your thing than mine, so if you see anything more definite please let me know. You can do that by email if there is evidence that you don't want to be visible. (I see that you haven't got email enabled on your account, but if you ever want to enable it and don't know how, you can do it via the "preferences" link at the top of the page whenever you are logged in.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen this, but I came here because of this to let you know about my report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danieleb82. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: In case you haven't already seen, I have now found enough evidence to take away the doubts that I had, and I have blocked the sockpuppet and deleted the pages it created. Thanks for pointing this out to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem

im off to bed now but see this[1] which made a major change with a bit of I don't know what (the "are were") - not just bad grammar but wrong, and deleted important information about open air activities. This is a site I've actually visited several times. Doug Weller talk 21:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Caftaric

I noticed you deleted at least one of their stub-templates under G5. Fair enough, but considering they were also fairly prolific stub-sorting into such stubs including removing whatever stub-templates may have been present before, it's resulting in some stubs remaining out of stub-categorization and redlinked stub templates at the bottom of articles. I'm aware of Template:Tabanoidea-stub. (Its linked category Category:Tabanoidea stubs remains extant, though. Probably should be deleted too if the template feeding it no longer exists) and it's on my list of things to fix in mainspace. Were there any others you deleted, and if so, any chance you could send me a list so I can fix them? (Either by re-stub-sorting or verifying with WikiProject Stub Sorting & whichever is the relevant Tree of Life WikiProject whether it should be recreated if I suspect it may be a valid stub type, should any of the latter type even exist) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC) EDIT: I just found the full string of deletions today per your log. Is my presumption that the entire string of stub templates were Caftaric creations correct, and should I be looking into earlier days in your log, or did you only delete Caftaric creations today? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AddWittyNameHere: I seem to have opened a can of worms there. Usually when a persistent sockpuppeteer keeps coming back one of the most effective tools to persuade them not to is to revert and delete everything they have done, so that they don't think they can just get away with block-evasion, and I started on that road here. However, I then realised that in this case there was a huge number of pages involved, and most of them looked useful, so I stopped deleting them. Adding to that what you say about the problems it has caused, it is clear that deleting them has done much more harm than good. I have therefore restored the Templates I deleted. Probably I should restore the categories too, but I am out of time now, so I'll have to come back to it. If I haven't done it within 20 hours from now, please remind me. (I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back to very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. Consequently if you do remind me I will regard it as help, not harassment.)

And I didn't delete any of Caftaric's creations before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear so, because yes, the sheer scale of clean-up (and frequently, re-creation) it'd have required wasn't exactly something I was looking forward to. A sizeable (albeit non-majority) number of their categories and templates probably should be deleted but it's unfortunately essentially impossible to tell them apart at a glance: whether they're useful or not tends to require significant time looking into things. Their stub categories and templates appear to have all been created without first proposing at WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals making it impossible to tell with certainty which would be considered valid, so I'll see if I can't find some time listing the entirety of their stub-category/template creations over at the stub-sorting project. Would be useful to have some help trying to figure out which are legitimate categories and should be kept, which should be turned into upmerged templates because they might become useful but currently result in an undersized stub category and which should be dumped over at TfD as not useful. (I could just dump the entirety over at TfD I suppose, but it's easier to filter out those that are almost definitely going to be kept by asking the relevant project. Post-Caftaric clean-up is going to be sizeable enough anyway that anything that can be fixed outside the slow bureaucratic processes probably is better fixed outside said processes).

Thanks for letting me know you wouldn't mind a reminder if needed! Always good to know beforehand that it won't come across as harassment. I have similar tendencies myself, except in my case it's more related to sleep-related issues leading to frequent exhaustion and distractability. Still, I understand where you're coming from. I suppose it doesn't exactly help that en.wiki has so. many. things that need doing, does it? (It's certainly my wiki-bane, at least) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminding you to un-delete Caftaric's categories. I know it's not actually 20 hours yet (18 or thereabout), but you appear to be offline anyway, so chances are that by the time you see this reminder, it's been 20h as asked, and I'm about to log off and may forget to remind you otherwise. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AddWittyNameHere: I started restoring all categories created by Caftaric and deleted by me, and then it occurred to me that perhaps it was only the stub categories that needed to be restored, so I continued restoring only those. In fact, it turned out that by then I had already restored almost all of the non-stub categories anyway (all but 2, I think). Let me know if you think either that I should restore the few remaining non-stub categories or that I should re-delete the ones I have already restored. If you don't care either way, that's fine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, as all articles that may have been in those two categories no longer are anyway, there's no use in restoring those two as it'd do nothing in helping the post-Caftaric clean-up. (Chances are that in most cases, the now-redlinked category was simply removed rather than the relevant parent category re-applied but eh, so be it. Someone'll get around to recatting them some day I'm sure) On the other hand, I'd keep everything you've restored restored for now, as that allows for making informed decisions on whether there's use in keeping them (as it shows where in the categorization trees the various categories are slotted, how many and what articles are in it, etc.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Caurgula

St. Caurgula shows every sign of contributing in good faith (e.g. [2]) and has engaged with the warnings on his talk page. The only major problem with his editing is not using edit summaries, which he has acknowledged [3], and he has not edited since he received his second warning about that. Was a block really called for? – Joe (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your description does not agree with what I see. The editor has been making numerous contentious changes to articles, including removing significant content, without explanation. Also, you say that he or she "has acknowledged" the messages about edit summaries, but how is "acknowledging" them and then ignoring them helpful? I can even see a case for regarding that as worse than not acknowledging them, as it shows without any doubt that the editor is aware of what has been said. As for "contributing in good faith", how is that relevant? There was no suggestion that the block was for lack of good faith. Four times (counting the virtually simultaneous messages from Doug Weller as just once) the editor was told either about using edit summaries or about removing content or both, the last time being warned that doing so might lead to a block. He or she ignored those messages and continued to remove content without explanation. If you can think of a better way of getting over the message than (1) a couple or more friendly messages (2) when those don't work a warning of a possible block and (3) when that doesn't work a short-term block to make it clear that we are serious, then please suggest it. I am not the only person who can't find a better way, as evidenced by the very high frequency with which that approach is used.

There is one thing which your message has drawn to my attention where I clearly made a mistake, because I misread the timing of Eric's post to the user talk page, and thought it was before St. Caurgula's latest edits, whereas it was after them. I have therefore removed my mistaken mention of Eric's post, and I am very glad you did draw my attention to it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought a friendlier approach would be better. They received a lot of templated messages in a short period of time. It's easy to miss or not fully take them in when you're new and in the middle of editing. Thanks for correcting that bit. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were editing very erratically - various small text fiddles with no great gain or loss, then yanking out whole chunks for no obvious reason. Usually no edit summaries, little added apart from the ok new article. Their talk page comments showed attitude, and an awareness that at least some of what they were doing did not meet WP norms. And jumping about the place, to several rather key articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James, I have answered you on my talk page. Can email you the reasons for this account if you wish. Re edit summaries and removal of content, I think I was editing archaeology articles in a similar way I treat my usual editing area of art history, ie removing see also, long block quotes etc, without appreciating incumbent convention. Also, because I got so many warnings within minutes, I missed some of them, and only really though Dough was bothered; at that point he seems to have check usered me, and I though emailed the results to you and others (so it seemed). So I gave up on the edit summaries, waiting for the inevitable check user block. I was not aware that not using edit summaries was a blockable offence. I think archaeology articles on wiki are generally excellent, and do not want to step on toes. St. Caurgula (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caftaric etc

Hi James. I see you blocked Caftaric. Editors who have created large numbers of ill-advised fauna-of-place categories are Nono64 / NotWith, Wwikix / R567 / Caftaric and Couiros22. Can you to see if there's evidence that any of these 3 groups are actually the same person? I see that both NotWith[4] and Couiros22 (and possibly also Wwikix) use the Breton language which must be quite unusual amongst en wp editors. Other editors have suggested (e.g. in CFD discussions) that Caftaric and NotWith are the same person). There may be material (e.g. Wwikix's userpage that has been deleted) that I can't see that might be relevant. If you can provide any info/advice that would help me unravel this I'd be grateful. DexDor^(talk) 21:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: I have spent some time looking into this, and I have some observations which I'll let you know about, but I don't have time now. If I haven't got back to you within a day or so please feel welcome to remind me. (I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back to very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. Consequently if you do remind me I will regard it as help, not harassment.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: I have now spent yet more time looking into this. There is enough evidence that the accounts are all the same person to persuade me, but much of the evidence consists of little bits and pieces which are not individually significant but which all add up, although there are a few more significant points. I am considering consulting another administrator for help. I am reluctant to give more specific information publicly, as doing so would merely alert the sockpuppeteer to what giveaway signs to avoid in future. Once again, if I don't get back to you on this within (say) 48 hours then please feel welcome to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder :-) DexDor^(talk) 18:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: Thanks. I have decided that the sockpuppetry is clear, so I have blocked the accounts that were not already blocked, though the only one that has been editing recently is Couiros22. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Eight years of adminship

Wishing JamesBWatson a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

185.50.25.24 appears to be currently WP:NOTHERE

Hi, JamesB. Just ran across 185.50.25.24 while perusing recent changes and noticed harassment of an editor called Thraen. This IP also recently harassed Thraen on the Polish Wiki, along with at least one other IP that has been rangeblocked here as socking for Wikinger. Suggest looking into the possibility of 185.50.25.24 being another Wikinger sock. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What to do now re Couiros22

Hi James, I note that you have blocked User:Couiros22 for being a block evading sockpuppet. I had been going through the editor's contributions list, reverting their biota edits where they had moved the first mentioned name in the article away from the article title (when it is a scientific name) to the vernacular names or one of the multiple names using their idiosincratic choice. I have not reverted any of their categorisation changes, as that is not my area of expertise, but I note that other editors have questioned their categorisation scheme and I specifically asked the editor what scheme they were using without success. Since the editor has made literally thousands of edits to biota related articles along these lines in the last few months, my question is what is the best way to deal with the issue. Should I just keep on patiently going through their contributiono, fixing the naming issue and leave the categorisation issues to others, or should there be some sort of automated reversion of all their edits that are still the current version and then clean up the remainder manually? Thanks in advance for your advice. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking at C22's categorization edits, but it may take a while. DexDor^(talk) 16:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Thorne:, @DexDor:: up to about two weeks ago when they were blocked, fellow sock Caftaric was also highly active with a similar editing behaviour, categorization nonsense and lack of communication—and ridiculously prolific, too, hitting over 96,000 edits before getting blocked. Between those two accounts we're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of 115,000 edits that need to be looked at, many of which are related to categorization. I suspect it might be a good idea to coordinate our work. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately at present I am extremely short of time, and can't give a detailed answer to the comments mentioned here. However, here is a very short answer, which I may come back and extend when I have time. This is an editor who has been doing the same kind of thing since at least as far back as 2011, using at least six accounts, maybe more. There has always been consensus against the editor, but he or she clearly doesn't care, evidently believing that he or she is RIGHT and anyone who disagrees can just be ignored. There is an enormous mess as a result, the editor having often edited so rapidly that I am convinced an unapproved bot must have been used. The subject is one I know very little about, so that I won't be able to give much help or advice relating to the specific issues, as opposed to general Wikipedia policy issues. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a huge clean-up problem. Perhaps this thread should be moved to a more central point for planning and the way ahead? Loopy30 (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James, general Wikipedia policy advice is what I'm after, no rush. Loopy30, I agree, I'm just not sure where exactly we should go to organise this. I'm assuming that we have a massive task ahead of us and we may need some expert assistance in cleaning up the mess. I had thought that possibly the WikiProject Fishes might be a good place for the fish aspects, but then there is birds and possibly plants and I don't know what else, so I wonder if there is some overarching place where we can determins an overall strategy and then take it to the various projects. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Thorne:, @Loopy30: WP:WikiProject Tree of Life would probably be the best fit (with notification cross-posts to the various relevant subprojects like Fishes, Insects, Lepidoptera, Birds, etc.) though it's not exactly the most active place on en.wiki.

I've already started a discussion (in so far as one response in a week can be considered a discussion) regarding the Lepidoptera side of matters (at least as far as Caftaric goes; there's still traces of old NotWith nonsense there too and I haven't yet had time to look into whether C22 edited Lepidoptera-related subjects as well) on the Lepidoptera WikiProject talkpage with a crossposted notification to Tree of Life, and presuming my proposal gets no opposition, I intend to implement everything that can be done by a non-sysop in a few days (28th or thereabout. That'd give everyone ten days to respond to my original posting and a full week to respond to my clarified proposal of action, after which I'm, in absence of opposition, going to presume I have an implied consensus) and after that list those categories emptied and not of use on CfD. (Sadly, G5 shouldn't be used on categories per the criteria)

A similar mess exists in regards to Caftaric's creation of stub-categories and templates. I'm working on a full post to bring to WikiProject Stub Sorting with all relevant information put in a table (name of template; number of articles in category; whether stand-alone or upmerged template; whether listed on the stub types page), but it's a fair bit of work and I might need another day or two to have my information post-ready. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:TOL would be a good coord point for clean-up of categories for flora and fauna articles, it's one that I had in mind too. Is there anywhere to post the sanctions and actions taken against Caftaric? Perhaps Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nono64? Also, the cross-wiki nature of his/her abuse extends globally. Couiros22 has edits in over 60 wiki projects, is there a venue at meta.wiki to post Caftaric/Couiros22's block history to? Loopy30 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, good questions, Loopy30. (By the way, do you want me to keep pinging you when I respond or are you watching this page anyway?)

It would be a somewhat unorthodox solution, but the only thing I could think of in regards of en.wiki is opening an LTA case. It might not be the kind of situation that immediately jumps to mind to most people when thinking "LTA", but in my opinion, the sheer scale of disruption combined with the repeated socking and block evasion would justify it—but it probably would be a good idea to ask a few more opinions before creating such a report. As far as global behaviour and meta venues, I wouldn't know, sorry. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Thorne, AddWittyNameHere, and Loopy30: First of all, for the sake of clarity, I will expand on what I meant when I wrote "I won't be able to give much help or advice relating to the specific issues, as opposed to general Wikipedia policy issues". I have neither sufficient experience of the biological issues involved nor sufficient experience of the way the categorisation system is operated to be any help with the actual clean up process. My invovlement has been purely in my capacity as an administrator, dealing with an editor who has persistently flouted various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (E.g. sockpuppetry, using an unapproved bot, editing against consensus, edit-warring, etc.) On the whole I think AddWittyNameHere's suggestion of opening a long term abuse case is probably a good idea. Taking it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life in the hope of getting help may also be worthwhile, but I know nothing about that WikiProject, so I can't say. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I at least figured you meant, yes. Thankfully we've got some folks around knowing about the taxonomy of at least particular subject areas (Lepidoptera for me especially, other insects and arachnids to a lesser degree, and as a result I'm familiar enough with general taxonomy that I can read, understand and apply references regarding other zoological areas even if outside my general field of knowledge so long as the sources don't presume significant familiarity with the taxonomical state of more complex cases. I suspect the same goes for most people in other parts of the tree of life: they might be most familiar with a particular field, but should be able to handle most non-complex cases in different taxonomical fields as well so long as sources are accessible). What we don't have many of are people with administrative capacities, so it's good to know you're around and familiar with the case even if not the subject matter.

My hope in regards to an LTA case is two-fold: on the one hand, it should reduce the amount of confusion and/or resistance clean-up ventures run into. On the other hand, it hopefully might allow their newest sock (because sooner or later they will pop up again) to be discovered faster, at utter least before they rack up a six-figure amount of edits again. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are all singing from the same song sheet here. My particular area of knowledge is more with fish, especially Australian freshwater fish, but I am reasonably comfortable with how the taxonomic system works and I also would be able to help out in other areas that are not too complex. I don't think it would be wise for me to take a lead in this issue, but I am a willing helper/worker. Just ping me once we get something started and I'll pitch in with whatever help I am able. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

N-dimensional sequential move puzzle

Hello, I saw you reverted an edit by sockpuppet V-Cube 6x6x6 - I just wanted to tell you that this one edit happened to be useful, so I reverted back to that version. In case you were wondering - I know that sometimes with mass-rollbacks it sometimes happens that constructive edits get reverted as well. Judith Sunrise (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, Judith. I am perfectly willing to accept your judgement about any individual edits. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]