User talk:28bytes/Archive 22

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Story

A story with a story, especially for you whenevr you have time: Great Dismal Swamp maroons, DYK? - Enjoy your trip, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I will take a look. 28bytes (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Making a bot

I'm just thinking, how much effort would it take to make a bot that made notifications at AN about administrative backlogs?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No idea. :) Do you think there would be consensus for such a thing? If so, your best bet would be to write something that would notify you (on your talk page) about administrative backlogs, and once you get that working perfectly, open a discussion someplace (e.g. WP:AN, WT:AN or the village pump) requesting feedback on it. If that goes well, a BRFA should be pretty painless. 28bytes (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It would help ease our problems with not enough admins paying attention to the backlogs. I think I'll open a VPPR thread on it.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Indef block on Kumioko

Don't you think an indef block is a bit harsh for a retired editor? If this were somebody who didn't care about the pedia I could see your choice, but since the editor had 300,000+ edits over 6 years, virtually all positive and valuable, don't you think a 30-day block would serve better? Does the editor have a long history of abusing multiple accounts? I've seen editors who were clearly using multiple accounts to stack AfDs given a mere three day block. It was my hope that the user would cool off a bit and come back again, and now your choice has closed the door on that, barring cleanstart. Please reconsider the length of the block. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Always happy to re-consider; I've posted a request for a block review on AN/I; feel free to comment there. To clarify, he's editing under another account now, which I've only blocked for a week. 28bytes (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Night Ranger

What point was he trying to make? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

He seems (seemed?) to like sock-tagging people and putting banned templates on their userpages. Floq and I asked him not to do that to Kumioko, and his response was of the "well, if 'banned' templates are such a bad thing, then I'm going to go through every banned user page and remove them" variety. The hope being that people would relent and say, "no, no, banned templates are great, don't do that!" or something, I guess. 28bytes (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And now he's blocked, and we wait for the next installment of the ongoing soap. Thanks for the explanation. BTW, I didn't see any productive edits from them, though I certainly haven't looked at them all. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, he did create this article recently, so he has the potential to be a very positive force here if he can set aside that sock silliness. 28bytes (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Move Like This

free, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Danke! 28bytes (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bridge on de Main page tomorrow (pic) and day after, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Likely of interest: Projekt Musikalben. I introduced the article on the talk, best watch yourself also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

added to Produkte, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

nominated - for a feeling how it may look see today's, lower right corner, Schon gewusst? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I appreciate it! It will be neat to see on the front page if it is accepted. 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion started, but only about a hook, tells me that the article is accepted as meeting the requirements. It's #59 in the waiting list, can take a month or so until appearing, and let's find a better hook. - For the bridge, I changed it for the second day (without pic), it just went on Hauptseite, we'll see for how long, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, let me know if I can do anything to help. 28bytes (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Follow the link "nominated" and see if you can propose a better hook. I would like to see the bassist mentioned, the one who spoke up thinks it's too long then. (Same one who returned the bridge "teaser" to nonsense, I knew that would happen. I argued, but don't expect much, -asking what's more important, the rules or the information of our readers? Actually a very general question.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of a version of the hook that was used on for the en-wiki DYK? 28bytes (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Try it. I think it might get even more complicated. Only one link is allowed, to the new article. You can try it here first, I'll look tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

For a smile: 18,756 hits for the bridge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! 28bytes (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

+ 5,414 the second day (without picture), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone proposed a simpler "teaser", what do you think? (Also pointed out that I was wrong saying the group "löste sich auf" in 1987, article says 1988, well, I went by last album.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to me! (They did tour after the 1987 album and broke up after the tour in 1988). 28bytes (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

On another portal also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI

ShmuckatellieJoe asked me a couple of times to indef block the account last week, but I told him to wait a few days and make sure. Today I got another email saying he was sure, so I went ahead and did it. There were no additional problems that led to the indef block, it was just their own request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-requested blocks when mixed with or extended from blocks for behavior make me a bit uneasy, but I'll trust your judgment. Thanks for the heads-up. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it didn't occur to me that it might be a problem, I should have checked with you first then. I usually hand out self-requested blocks like candy, but I think this is the first time it's been for someone already blocked by another admin. My apologies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no apologies necessary, and it's not for my sake that I'm uneasy... I've just seen a number of other editors (Badger Drink, BarkingMoon, and a few others) have a self-requested block later used against them. People will say Kumioko the person was indefinitely blocked for socking, and while you and I know that's not the case, it can be hard to explain the nuance to people. 28bytes (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding that, another FYI since I've indirectly commented about on this situation at WT:CheckUser#Recommendation for a clarification of the rules. Amalthea 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. 28bytes (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My RFC

I've opened an RFC, but I haven't been able to get many uninvolved editors. Should I canvass? I'm neutral on this dispute.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't canvass. Sometimes discussions just aren't interesting to a large group of people, so only a few people will comment. You've got an RfC tag on there, so uninvolved people would have had a chance to weigh in if they wanted to. 28bytes (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, it can take some time - for one thing, the RfC bot hasn't pushed it out yet. RfCs can last for a month, so best to just let it happen. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Email

I just sent you another email. Just wanted to mention I think those Ip's should stay blocked because folks are going to think there Kumioko wether they are or not. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)(Kumioko)

As I said in the e-mail, you were blocked for a week and the week has passed, so feel free to edit productively. As long as you don't annoy people or pretend to be two different people everything should be fine. 28bytes (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, its all good I don't intend to edit much if at all. I have seen what happens when a productive editor voices their opinion or tries to do the right thing and I have learned my lesson. I plan to stay away and let Wikipedia do whatever its going to do without me. :-) 138.162.8.58 (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle

You referred in this discussion to Delicious carbuncle's "WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior". He seems to be intent on proving your point, doesn't he? How much longer are we going to have to put up with this WR troll and serial harasser? Prioryman (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I admit to being puzzled why he requested an interaction ban with you if he wants to keep opening noticeboard threads about you. 28bytes (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You closed the AN thread without understanding what was being asked. Now that you do understand, can you please reopen the thread? I would just do it myself, but that seems rude. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you posted any links to sanctions outside the remit of ArbCom, I'm not seeing them. Regardless, reopen if you want, I won't revert you. (And unless some new information appears in that thread, I'll likely not participate in it further.) Do mind the boomerang though. 28bytes (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There were no links, but non-ArbCom links are clearly and explicitly part of the discussion so I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that it was related only to ArbCom. Nevermind, I've reopened the thread and listening for the whistle of boomerangs. Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi 28bytes, Lothar von Richthofen is asking to have his rollback privileges restored; since you're the admin who revoked them, your opinion on the matter would be appreciated. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking with me. I've got no objections; I've commented there to that effect. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Yes, I do try to make it follow my example and keep to its username! The Helpful One 01:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Hi 28bytes. Would you evaluate my request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist? The spam-blacklist is hindering me from working on the article. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable whitelisting examiner.com pages outside of extraordinary circumstances, so unfortunately I'm going to decline. You're welcome to solicit another admin or let one of the "regulars" there handle it; you may find someone willing to whitelist it, and I have no objections if they do. 28bytes (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

They have been approved before (e.g. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2023/05#examiner.com/soccer-in-national/dcu-evp-stephen-zack-explains-dc-united-women-partnership), but I understand why you feel uncomfortable taking action in an unfamiliar area and I respect that. Is it okay for me to submit my changes to the article while the request is pending? I've reviewed the page and some requests take weeks to handle. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the whitelist should be concerned only with the link itself; if you feel it's a valid source for the material you wish to add, just reference it without including the direct link for the time being until the whitelist request is handled. 28bytes (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I have now done so. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Carcharoth (talk · contribs) to take a look. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. 28bytes (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure I have much to add. Like 28bytes, I think it best those who normally handle such things handle that request. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

28bot

Hey, how's it going? I just wanted to check in because I noticed that 28bot still seems to be randomly delivering the different test templates. That's okay with us, but I wanted to say that it's in our queue of stuff to wrap up analysis of, so even if you want to keep testing, we'll get preliminary results from the data since we started. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven. Are you saying I should revert to the pre-test templates (they were {{uw-test1}} in all cases, I think), or did you want me to fine-tune the "test" templates that it's using now? 28bytes (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly fine to keep it how it is. I just wanted to make sure you weren't unaware that the randomizer was still there. We can check in again soon to tweak the test templates if we want, based on any results we get out of running the numbers. Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, 28bytes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Shared account

Didn't think you'd be around. I've reopened this, less than 6 hours just isn't enough, and there was no consensus. Hope you don't mind. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, no problem. 28bytes (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

fyi

you were the last blocking admin on the PumpkinSky account ... I think it's time to unblock. I would rather discuss the situation before taking action. — Ched :  ?  05:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not my call to make, but if you're asking whether I'd like to see him editing again, the answer is yes, I would. 28bytes (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've opened a discussion with Moni. I do very much appreciate your involvement in the entire situation. — Ched :  ?  14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio's post was encouraging. It would be great if a resolution could be worked out without having to go through another circus at the noticeboards. 28bytes (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's always a tricky, almost-unachievable balance, though, isn't it? If there is no "community" consensus for an editor to be blocked or unblocked, I think the general default has to be to unblock, or else cowboy admins quick on the block button have too much control (NB: I don't think this is what Moni did, and Ched's (unintentional?) insinuation on her talk page this morning was unhelpful IMHO). Yet, there were legitimate problems that should be addressed, as an agreement or conditions to return. You can't practically work out those conditions at a noticeboard, because those are the most dysfunctional places here. But you don't want the admin willing to offer the most flexible conditions to get to unilaterally unblock, either (trying to make a general point here, not saying anything about Salvio). But you can easily end up, as I've seen a couple of times this week, with an editor who makes an unblock request, and the specific details of the unblock conditions aren't accepted at ANI. Suddenly they're considered "community banned", which becomes a Catch-22. An admin unblocking unilaterally with few conditions in that case is going to run into problems, and might end up permanently sabotaging the return.

  I think the best solution here, which may or may not succeed (because you might be in a Catch-22 already), is to find a couple of people who disagreed about the severity of of the previous actions, but who acknowledge that those who don't agree with them are not raving loons. In other words, include some Rlevse/PS detractors in a small group of reasonable people who disagree, and have them work out unblock conditions. You'll end up with conditions that maybe no one likes a lot, but might not be so objectionable that one side or the other can just torpedo the who thing.

  p.s. Also, PS is going to have to stick it out and not say "nevermind" if the argument gets heated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Flo, might I ask what "insinuation" you feel I've made? — Ched :  ?  15:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I interpreted your question there as implying that Moni was somehow wrong to have blocked PS when she did, without justifying the block. I've seen her justify it in pretty decent detail at least twice. Even if that interpretation was wrong, I was surprised by it, because in every previous edit I've ever seen you make anywhere, you've been calm and levelheaded (even when I disagreed), but this time was unhelpfully confrontational. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

p.s. If the connotations of the word "insinuation" is the problem, I'll admit "implied" would have been better; I guess "insinuation" has overtones of intentional worminess that I didn't mean to use. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please allow me a bit of time to consider your comments before I reply further. I have the utmost respect for your viewpoints, and want to think this through before I respond. I will make my apologies to Moni for appearing confrontational. That was not my intent. — Ched :  ?  16:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, you make a ton of excellent points, as usual. You can blame me for PS's "nevermind" on his previous request, because I told him to consider withdrawing so as not to run afoul of the idiotic formulation that no consensus at AN to accept a particular unblock request = user is now banned. I think part of Ched's frustration comes from the fact that several of us reached out to Moni to try to work out some conditions to bring PS back into the fold and she's not been receptive to that. Now, she's under no obligation to work with any of us on this, of course, and I'll freely admit that we all (myself definitely included) could and should have approached her less aggressively on the matter. Regardless of the merits of Moni's block, I think it's past time to unblock, but as I was the one who brought the last unblock request to AN, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to unblock unilaterally or without her blessing. I wish she would be willing to give her blessing, but wishes and horses, etc., etc. 28bytes (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Checking contributions

Re this, I'm curious: why check my contributions based on my RfA vote? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity, basically. I often do that when someone posts something interesting, to see if there are any other interesting discussions I might want to read or participate in. (Turns out yes, in this case!) Nothing nefarious. :) 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Socks & Dios

I'll cheer for anyone who attempts to re-establish english on English Wikipedia, even if their methods 'might' include sockery. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely why I warned you. Read Wikipedia is not about winning sometime. 28bytes (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a quick note to thank you for your supportive comments on my talk page earlier today regarding the NFCC dispute I was involved in. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. 28bytes (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)