User talk:IgnorantArmies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


2018 ICC World Cricket League Division Two[edit]

Hi IA. I'd like your thoughts on the prod placed on the article for the 2018 ICC World Cricket League Division Two. I'm leaning towards removing it, as the Div 2 tournament forms such a key part to the 2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier, even though not that much is known about it right now. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 09:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been deprodded by the article's creator. I agree with the deprodding – WP:CRYSTAL was cited as the reason for the deletion, but I don't think it really applies, as the tournament is (a) probably less than a year away and (b) guaranteed to occur. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Ahh yes, I see the de-prod shortly after posting here! Thanks for your comment. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 17:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

RfA?[edit]

Hey mate. I was originally going to post here offering to give you the page mover userright (and throw in a few others like rollback and pending changes reviewer) if you wanted, so that you can do the moves like at Jack Thomson by yourself. But then I thought, would you have any interest in running for adminship? RfA can be an unpredictable beast, but I think you'd have as good a chance at passing as anyone with your content creation work coupled with good experience at AfD, CfD, RM, etc. I'd be more than happy to nominate you if you were interested. Anyway, let me know if you are or would prefer the other rights mentioned initially (or none of the above). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jenks24: I wasn't actually aware that there was a separate page mover right, and having access to that would certainly be helpful. I would probably get less use out of the other userrights you mentioned, but it wouldn't hurt to have them either. Running for adminship is definitely something I've thought about, and I'm flattered that you'd be willing to nominate me. Before jumping into an RfA I would probably want to make myself a little more visible in project space, just so it's a sure thing I get through. I've got a few content-related things on my to-do list, but after I knock those off I might start trying to do more work in administrative areas. So I guess in a few months I might come and tap you on the shoulder and see if you're still good for a nomination. Cheers, IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Great! I've added the aforementioned rights to your account, as you say there's no harm having them and you never know when they might come in handy. Plus I remember at my RfA someone questioned my trustworthiness because I didn't have rollback(!). Whenever you feel ready to go, let me know and I'll be happy to write up a nomination. In the meantime, it never hurts to keep half an eye on RfA and see what people are regularly opposing about to see if you can avoid it. There's also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll if you ever want to get an opinion other than mine about what your chances would be. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frank Allen (East Perth).jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frank Allen (East Perth).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Help needed- possible technical problem with the translit template[edit]

Hello User:IgnorantArmies, Thank you very much for your tireless contributions (43,000+ edits) to Wikipedia. If you could spare your time, could you please take and look and help to sort this out ( the tech aspects, not the article content issue), possible technical problem with the translit template. Kindly reply at article's talkpage here. Thanks, 2know4power (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

WA Elections[edit]

Thanks for that, it's no problem. If you'd like to do the other WA elections, that would be fantastic. And yes, that would make sense if the 'Legislative Assembly' bits were knocked off the results pages. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

issues[edit]

Fresh eyes on - Ministerialists_and_Oppositionists_(Western_Australia) would be much appreciated I have browser issue and have lost a lot of about 4 attempts at improving the scrappy stub - somehow lost heaps of refs and all there a heaps of issues about extra info and whether should be separate articles thanks JarrahTree 07:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

JarrahTree thanks for creating the article, a scrappy stub is better than nothing. The reference you found from 1921 is quite interesting, I wasn't previously aware that some media were still using the term at that time. I don't know if you have WT:AUSPOL on your watchlist, but I actually commented there recently about the same article (before you created it). My comment is near the bottom of this discussion). IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Too many hats, too many skirmishes - I have difficulty keeping up with articles as I do coping with ..... , so it is likely the problem of media carrying on about ministerialists long after they have agglomerated into notional party structures is not easy to ascertain - I popped the issue to Drovers' as well - and with my research in State records - I never come across the terminology at all... bizarro - but the feds were using the term into the 30s as well... the thing about allegiances and the shifts and changes in the era until 1911 - I dont think they really knew who they were - in other words their allegiances and self identifications then were confusing enough to themselves - the historical record and the journos with their labels do not necessarily help JarrahTree 15:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW - thank you for the link to the discussion - appreciated JarrahTree 12:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

BS[edit]

if the harambee article had been written about the earlier 20 years and not the demise - it would be damned interesting and reflect the churchlands teachers collee to wacae and to micky mouse uni - problem with most afds - they have no idea - and even less so when outsiders... cheers JarrahTree 12:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on wp en about churchlands teacher college, nedlands teacher college, or WACAE - no wonder some say we havent even started getting anything into english wikipedia - just basic background on how the post secondary education system evolved - is a big black hole JarrahTree 12:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Well, this is certainly the new number one on the list of "oddest things I've had to deal with on Wikipedia". DoRD, as the blocking admin and the user most familiar, I'm primarily addressing these comments to you. This is (obviously) an unblock request, but I've chosen not to use {{Unblock}} as there are a few things that I'd like to clear up with you that aren't completely germane. However, if necessary I'm happy to reformat this into a formal unblock request.

This is the only account I have ever had. I have never engaged in sockpuppetry or anything resembling it, either through alternative accounts or through IP editing. I do not control and have never edited from any of the other accounts you listed at SPI. On the comparatively rare occasions that I have edited as an IP address, this has been either accidental or due to laziness (i.e. not bothering to sign in for simple edits).

DoRD, to sum up, I think you've put two and two together and made a number that definitely isn't four. Based on your brief comments at SPI and on your talkpage (in response to Jenks24), it seems you blocked me based on CheckUser and EIA reports. On your talkpage, you provided this link to an EIA report comparing the editing habits of me and Bozzio. Presumably you believe that is evidence that Bozzio and I are the same person operating dual accounts. I don't think it's an understatement to say that for any editors who edit in the same topic areas, or even just have been on Wikipedia for while, EIA will show a close connection. For instance, Jenks24, who was kind enough to attempt to intercede for me on your talkpage, has an even more "suspicious" EIA report than mine and Bozzio's (Jenks, if you read this, I hope you don't mind me using you as an example here). In the main areas where I edit – Australian sport, Australian politics, and Australian history – I can think of probably 20 other editors who would display similar EIA reports to the one which you felt was sufficient evidence to block me (and I can provide usernames if you wish to verify this yourself). Even you and I have an amount of overlap in our edits, despite the fact that I can't recall ever interacting with you before and we presumably live on different continents.

If you still feel like the EIA vindicates your claims of sockpuppetry, I would urge you to take a look at our "Edit Counter" reports – here is mine, here is Bozzio's. There is no correlation between our "namespace totals"; there is an inverse correlation between our year counts; there is no correlation between our "time cards". Please also compare our editing topics of choice in greater depth. We appear to have an overlap in the area of sport, but in history and politics Bozzio seems to have made only a handful of edits, whereas I have made thousands. Ditto for our move logs – Bozzio has moved 33 pages (and only 4 since July 2011!), I've moved 864. And, with all due respect to Bozzio, our content creation/expansion work is poles apart – it's hard to bring that up without seeming a little arrogant, but I think my contributions speak for themselves. Hell, you could even compare our Wiktionary and Commons edits – Bozzio has 5 and 7, I have 68 and 483 respectively.

So, I think you may have in effect succumbed to some sort of confirmation bias in your interpretation of the EIA report – unintentionally ignoring the evidence which show that Bozzio and I are different editors, even thought it clearly outweighs the evidence which purports to show that we are the same person. I hope you won't interpret that as any sort of slur on you or as some sort of deflection, but it's just the only explanation I can think of. If there is anything above (or elsewhere in my editing history) that you feel I've misrepresented or does actually provide evidence for your sockpuppetry claims, please mention it and I will do my best to rebut it.


Now, you can't have confirmation bias with having something to confirm, and I guess that's where your CheckUser report comes into play. Before today, I had only a little knowledge of what CheckUser (and indeed SPI as a whole) entailed. I've read up on it to some degree, but please correct me if I've gotten something wrong or made incorrect assumptions.

So, according to CheckUser, Bozzio's edits are being / have been made from the same IP address or addresses as mine. Presumably the latter, otherwise I doubt you would have even opened an SPI. I don't have an easy answer for this. It's unfortunate that I don't have access to your CheckUser data – if that were the case, I might be able to point to specific things that were perhaps overlooked or misinterpreted, etc. (as I did to some extent above). All I can do I speculate, and hope that you'll assume good faith. Without going into specifics (although I can if necessary), I do the vast majority of my editing in an environment that involves a local network. There have definitely been other Wikipedia "editors" in the vicinity at times, because I've occasionally been subjected to range / IP blocks. (I don't think I've ever gone to the trouble of having one lifted, as they've always been of a short duration and I've just considered it to be an involuntary [though not unneeded] wikibreak). Per the CheckUser, Bozzio would then have to be someone in the same building as me (or even the same room, but I would seriously doubt that). I'm not really interested in advertising myself to others as a prolific Wikipedian, so I don't think I'll be finding out exactly who the someone is. I haven't mentioned any of the other accounts you noted at SPI, but presumably the same would apply (alternatively, Bozzio is still a sockmaster, albeit with one less sock than you originally thought). Those all appear to be short-lived single-purpose accounts, so there's little else I can really say about them.

DoRD, I'm sure that as an admin you've come across some pretty bizarre cases, which probably makes it easier to leap to conclusions. But in general, does this all really seem plausible to you? If I were going to going to go to the trouble of creating and maintaining a sockpuppet account, why would I use it to make what seem broadly to be the same pedestrian edits I make with this account? Judging by their talkpage, Bozzio does seem to be a bit more hotheaded than me, but there aren't many particular edits in their contributions that I would be reluctant to make myself. The whole point of sockpuppetry is to fabricate some sort of false consensus. According to the EIA, there have been three instances in six years where Bozzio has participated in the same discussion as me (an AfD, a CfD, and ITN/C). The amount of AfDs, CfD, TfDs, RMs, etc., that I've started (or at least participated in) in that time would have to be in the hundreds, and there have certainly been plenty of contentious calls where an extra !vote might've done the trick. If all of this were true, I don't think it's an understatement to say that it would be one of the most pointless cases of sockpuppetry in Wikipedia's history. DoRD, it sucks that I have to base a portion of this appeal / review on asking you to assume good faith, but that's the way it is. I really do feel that I've conclusively proved Bozzio has such different editing habits that they and I simply cannot be the same person. If you still have lingering doubts about this, I will gladly go into more detail.


DoRD, as I hinted at above, I also have a few concerns that are to do with your actions in issuing the block. I hope its possible for you to separate everything below here from my unblock request as much as possible. However, if you would prefer an uninvolved admin to deal with my block appeal, that's fine (although given you already have an understanding of the situation I think it would be easiest it you assessed it yourself).

I'm sure you agree that issuing an indefinite block is a very serious action. I'm aware that we make a formal distinction between "blocking" and "banning", but in reality an indefinite block amounts to a ban from Wikimedia. There's been an element of nonchalantness in your actions that I think a lot of editors would find distasteful. You blocked me unilaterally, based on your own "investigation" (as it were), and made no attempt to notify me that you had commenced an SPI investigation.

As far as I can tell, you had no formal obligation to notify me of anything, but to do that with such a serious matter is highly unconventional. I have six years of editing behind me, tens of thousands of edits, hundreds of articles created, and a clean block log. The closest I've come to any sort of "discipline" is one formal (i.e. EWN-issued) warning for edit-warring (and I would have appealed that if warnings meant anything). Outside of an account being compromised, or some sort of absolute meltdown, I can't imagine any circumstances in which unilaterally banning a similar user without consultation would be advisable or justified. Could you please identify what circumstances made you feel it was unnecessary to question me about your findings? In my view, if you had done so, I could have provided much of the same information that I've provided here, minus some of the anxiety and minus several paragraphs.

On the SPI page you said that you were "investigating some very inappropriate logged-out editing", which I assume is referring to IP vandalism. However, you didn't list any IP editors listed on the SPI, and, as far as I can tell, your last block of an IP editor was several days before you blocked me. Have you revision-deleted this IP vandalism, or hidden their contributions in some other way? If not, why were details not provided at the SPI? If that information contributed to your decision to ban me, then it should be available for other editors (not least myself) to assess. I doubt it would have made any difference to my unblock request, but that's not the point. WP:CHECK states:

Checkusers are given discretion to check an account, but must always do so for legitimate purposes. Broadly, checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing. […] On their own cognisance, checkusers may nonetheless privately make any check that falls within the bounds of CheckUser policy. [my emphasis]

I am presuming that your use of the CheckUser tool falls into the "own cognisance" category. WP:CHECK also states "The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run." Could you please explain why exactly a check was run on my account, or more specifically what led you to run a check? From some of the comments you've made, you've given the impression that you just sort of stumbled across this situation by accident. I guess that's possible, but it doesn't really gel with standard practice.


Hopefully this is the only contribution to the unblock-request genre that I ever have to make. If any other interested parties have read this from top to bottom, thank you, and any comments would be much appreciated. IgnorantArmies (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


IgnorantArmies, no offense, but per my usual habit, my response will be brief.
  1. I noticed some highly inappropriate - not vandalism - edits from an IP address, to several pages in my watchlist. The nature of the edits made it clear that they were done by someone with an account who logged out in violation of the "avoiding scrutiny" portion of the sockpuppetry policy.
  2. I ran a check on the IP address and discovered that the CU results were an exact match to your account and Bozzio. By exact match, I mean the same type of device, operating system version, browser, and of course, IP address.
  3. Due to your account being around for a number of years, and having made almost 43K edits with a clean block log, I asked for a second opinion from another CU. They agreed with my results.
  4. Only then did I actually run a check against your account, at which time I discovered the remainder of the accounts listed in the SPI.
  5. I did not list any IP addresses in the SPI because, to protect editors' privacy, the Privacy policy prohibits it.
Because the bulk of the case was based on CU evidence, only other CUs will be able to do a proper block review, so I'll recommend two avenues you can take. One is to appeal via UTRS where information can be exchanged privately with CUs. The other is to appeal directly to ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Respectfully, ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi IA. I hope this can be sorted out as soon as, and you're back editing on here. Such a shame to have a good editor in this situation. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry User:DoRD, but you are wrong on this one. So Boz has the exact opposite view on the local club's name as IA? Also, from doxxing someone to asking for help in just over a month? Double/triple check your CU data, it must be closer to "blood type" level of a match than DNA. The-Pope (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Response on my talk. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Rafael Brache[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 11 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rafael Brache, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rafael Brache was declared a traitor to the Dominican Republic for denouncing the "parsley massacre"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rafael Brache. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rafael Brache), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2017 AFL Women's logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2017 AFL Women's logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Crw2[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Crw2, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Reg Zeuner.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Reg Zeuner.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicky Winmar gesture.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nicky Winmar gesture.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Block appeal[edit]

Hi IA. Hope you're well. If you still check your talkpage from time to time, and you want to come back to editing, please see post on DoRD's talkpage. It would be great to see you back here. No worries if you're not interested. Take care. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Africa T20 Cup logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Africa T20 Cup logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adelaide Strikers logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Adelaide Strikers logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2016 ICC World Twenty20 logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2016 ICC World Twenty20 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John Tonkin.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Tonkin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October![edit]

Africa (orthographic projection).svg
Video-x-generic.svg

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)