User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 10

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


Hi John! Thanks for your help already. I replied to you here with a hopefully minor request: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WP:HighBeam_retrospective_data. Also, just out of curiosity, are you familiar with Mediawiki and Javascript? Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 13:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about a reply for VPT, but re the above, I am slightly familiar with Mediawiki (I assume you are referring to its source code, that is, how it works), but there are many other editors with much greater knowledge, and I know very little about Javascript. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Response from Brad's page

Why they do it is most important, because it tells us where the problem lies. Put simply, had Trev been able to say "this activity in my userspace is frustrating me and I want it to stop" without someone pushing for him to be sanctioned just for raising the issue, then maybe we could have had a civil and constructive discussion without anyone getting sanctioned or put at risk of sanction. That was not allowed, therefore that did not occur. There is no good reason why you or Math should not support a simple courtesy of letting a sanctioned editor object to conduct that has nothing do with why the editor was sanctioned. Trev and Sight were sanctioned for editing R&I "with common purpose", not for objecting to an editor meddling in their userspace because of some random sock. It is not about the removal of comments by banned editors, but the fact that a reasonable disagreement can become disruptive, with one side being denied the option to appeal for intervention in the dispute.

Let me give you some hypotheticals. Were Math to start a lame edit war with Trev over whether Master Chief's armor should be described as army green or olive, this restriction would mean that Trev could not say "Math you have started a rather lame edit war" because that would be having a discussion about Math's conduct. Even worse, if an editor who has made exactly eleven edits to the article on race and intelligence, all before Trev's involvement, were to edit the article on the INS Vikramaditya and insert material from a news article that gets certain specs about the ship wrong, Trev would not able to start a section on the talk page to say "this editor is inserting the wrong specs" because he would be initiating a discussion about the conduct of an editor who has worked in the race and intelligence topic area. Do you see the problem now?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's good to be concerned about fairness, however my comment here was intended to suggest that perfect fairness is not the primary purpose of Wikipedia. Instead, we should focus on assisting actions that improve the encyclopedia, while resisting actions that weaken it. An improved encyclopedia requires a good community, but we cannot spend undue amounts of time supporting all varieties of opinion. For example, your above hypothetical is not likely to occur in practice, particularly if you compare the contributions of the two editors (one is very active in a range of highly advanced article development, and the other has done little significant work outside of the R&I area, and almost nothing this year).
There is a real problem about the sock who posts messages intended to harass a good editor, and who does it on talk pages of users who are likely to prevent WP:DENY being applied. I have commented negatively about those who imagine that reverting the removal of a banned user's remark is useful. The sock is clever enough to phrase their comment politely, but we all know the purpose of the message, and we should all know that failing to apply DENY guarantees that the banned user will continue their harassment. While I and others have made such negative comments, I am not aware of anyone wanting to sanction an editor just because they reverted the removal of a comment, and would be interested if you could point me to a discussion about that. I think summed up the situation well (their comment is currently here).
Regarding "simple courtesy": A good procedure often applied at ANI is to consider whether there is any evidence that a particular user is here for the encyclopedia. There is little likelihood of a good outcome if someone cannot understand that they should not keep a message designed to harass an editor (even when that editor is an opponent).
A final point about what I said earlier is that an examination of the underlying issue shows that there has been a campaign to use Wikipedia to promote a minority view regarding race and intelligence. Looking at the details reveals how the community should best proceed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I feel the talk about these particular comments is overreacting. No harm would have resulted from allowing the remarks to remain, but a great deal of harm has resulted from trying to remove them. Let sleeping dogs lie as it were. At any rate, I am not particularly interested in continuing this side-bar.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree about not continuing, but I will make another observation. DENY is the only tool that works (which is good, because it is the only tool we have). It is very incorrect to believe that it does no harm to leave polite provocations (the last sock was named after the street where their victim lives—keeping such a comment is outrageous). Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


I entirely agree. Except - editing/refactoring others talkpage comments is allowed under its own guidelines (but its suggested not to for marginal cases) for various disruptive reasons. In my opinion this clearly fell under those exceptions in that he is bringing his conflict with TDA (due to the current open Request for amendment/clarification at arbcom) to WQA for no good purpose other than to get digs in at TDA. I didnt remove the entirety of his comment, if he is of the opinion that TDA is owning the article he is more than welcome to say so (and post diffs). But in this case he was not acting constructively to resolve Colonel's & TDA issue. He is in fact deliberately escalating it, which goes counter to the point of WQA. If I wanted to go down that route, I could (lamely) invoke IAR and say the 'not refactoring/editing others comments' rule was in this case a hinderence to the projects aims, chiefly - getting editors to work together in a collegial manner. The worse thing is, this was not for TDA's benefit, it was for Mathsci's, one of the reasons for that amendment/clarification request is that TDA is of the opinion Mathsci has been poking at his opponents in various places and denying that discretionary sanctions can be applied to him because its not covered by the R&I arbcom remit (for which he was admonished for his battleground behavior. Its a pretty good example of him doing precisely that. What I dont/didnt want was Mathsci ending up at AE because someone thinks his using interactions related to a R&I case merits sanction. At this point I would dearly love it if any admin would hat the entire section under Lionelts reply as that is all that need be said on the matter unless someone else chimes in with some actual evidence of TDA needing WQA response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I used to post quite regularly at WP:WQA but haven't had the opportunity lately, so perhaps something has changed that I have missed. Nevertheless, I would be astonished if removing text from someone else's comments (like this) was allowed in a guideline somewhere. Removing WP:BLP violations and extreme personal attacks is fine, but the removed text in this case was someone's opinion that a person named at WQA had a pattern of problem behavior (of course that opinion may not be correct, but it is a valid claim). The removed text included brief quoted phrases (supported by a diff) where certain words were directed at a respected arbitrator, and the claim is that those words indicate a WQA problem. That is precisely the purpose of the WQA noticeboard—a place where claims about an editor can be aired. As I mentioned, my personal feeling is that now is not the time to raise those matters, but they are very reasonable claims (but I'm not going to offer an opinion on their validity at the moment). Johnuniq (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Having looked into it in detail before I acted, my opinion was that they are far from 'reasonable'. I am fine with dissenting opinions. I am fine with claims (both legitimate or illegitimate) being aired. Those can be looked into and commented on/dismissed etc. That is not a problem, as you say that is part of WQA exisits. I am not fine with intentional sabotage. If I felt the need to justify my actions I can explain that they were removed as trolling (Allowed, but is a judgement call.) or the above IAR due to the rule getting in the way of progress. (Which I loathe by the way, but there is a reason it still exists). As I said to Mathsci, if he really wants to post that stuff there while there is an open Arbcom request that could quite easily be applied to just that sort of editing, I am not about to edit-war it out. But he needs to think very carefully. I didnt think I needed to explain in detail to him just way it was an amazingly bad idea, but perhaps I should have. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you performed similar gatekeeping much in the past? If this issue were aired at ANI (there is no need for it be—that's purely hypothetical), several people (the usual suspects) would line up to say that M is exhibiting battleground behavior, while others (the usuals on the other side) would say that the comments were perfectly reasonable and in keeping with WQA. No experienced editor would support removal of those comments. There is absolutely no requirement that if two editors are engaged in an arbcom case, that they should not comment on each other at a noticeboard. Of course onlookers will form their own opinions on those comments, but they are free to make them. It is not sabotage to comment at a WQA case—the purpose of the noticeboard is to gather community input, and the comments were brief, expressed in a civil manner, and focused entirely (with a diff and brief quotes) on claims of WQA problems in relation to one of the participants. Johnuniq (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Occasionally over the years, although generally only as an IP. (As almost all of my work was, and continues to be, done anonymously. I generally only log in these days to comment due to the virulent anti-IP bias that is creeping through EN-WP.) But I dont doubt it would go as you say at any of the other noticeboards, which was rather why I was hoping M would get the hint and not continue his battleground behavior at WQA and end up at one of them. Of course I understand the risk he or someone else might try and drag me before AN/ANI but I felt it was worth it in the circumstances. As the point was made (and ignored by M) and I respect your opinion on it (Although I disagree in this case) I will let the matter drop. I have posted my comments at the relevant request so if any of the arbs there want to take issue they are more than welcome to. While there is no requirement if editors are engaged at arb-level to not take it to noticeboards, its been seen time and again its a very bad idea. On a related note however, I find it highly interesting to say the least that an uninvolved editor reverted M's comments on myself at the Arbcom request, thus giving him cause to post his 'dont edit my comments' diatribe there, where since I had not touched any of his edits - it looks a bit suspicious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I tried to phrase my comment about ANI in a manner to make it clear that no one will be dragged before ANI over what we are discussing—what I am saying is that no editor with noticeboard experience would agree with your removal of text. It is hard to follow all the details; this is what happened: M made a perfectly good comment at WQA (perhaps it was unwise under the circumstances, but it was well within expectations at WQA and is standard procedure). You removed part of their comment (unwise, and incorrect). You then posted negative views about M at the arbcom request. That is why M responded with an objection to your refactoring at WQA. Another editor reverted a comment by M at arbcom, but as explained here, that was a misclicked button, and was fully resolved, and has not been mentioned on the arbcom page. In case you are unaware of the background to all this, some years ago a bunch of racist editors tried to hijack many articles on scientific issues to greatly exaggerate certain views regarding race and intelligence. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure: Request for feedback on Community Fellowship proposal

Hi! I'm contacting you because you have participated or discussed The Wikipedia Adventure learning tutorial/game idea. I think you should know about a current Community Fellowship proposal to create the game with some Wikimedia Foundation support. Your feedback on the proposal would be very much appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowship goes forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Thanks again for your consideration.


Cheers, User:Ocaasi 16:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WQA proposal

Hi John! I know you're a frequent contributor at WQA and I wanted to let you know that there's a proposal to fold WQA into the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee#Proposal by Xavexgoem. We'd love it if you could chime in. Thanks! All the best, Keilana|Parlez ici 17:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam notes

This is a scratchpad of issues for consideration by Ocaasi (talk · contribs) in relation to a request to analyze dumps of external links in order to determine trends in the usage of links to See #HighBeam above. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Links at 2012-07-02

Counting articles only, there are 13,586 external links that mention "highbeam" (case insensitive) in the external links table dump from July 2012. Of those, many are duplicates, leaving 12,362 unique URLs. The following is a quick analysis of those different URLs.

Dubious Around 50 dubious links like:

Search Around 20 like:

Nonstandard Around 20 nonstandard links like:

Library Around 20 like:

Library/docFree Around 60 like:

Publications 10 like:

Business 385 like:

Strange doc 10 like:

Doc 11700 like:


  • Is the analysis of highbeam links still wanted!?
  • Which URLs should be included in a count? I just need a rule to follow, such as "anything like ''" or "only the Doc" items.

I have downloaded external links tables for the following dates (after expansion, 55GB!): 20120211, 20120307, 20120403, 20120502, 20120601, 20120702 and can extract counts from them. If really curious, a list of all links in articles at July 24 is in User:Johnuniq/Sandbox—warning: that is a very big page and may take half a minute to display, if it displays. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

John, thank's so much for this! I definitely still would like you to do a basic comparison and I just wasn't sure exactly what to ask for. But the above has made it very easy for me. I think we should compare DOC (11700 like) links from 20120211, 20120307, and 20120702. This will give us a baseline for growth comparison as well as a 4 month window to check the growth following the HighBeam trial. Then, if you're still in my good graces, I will politely request we do one in early 2013. Please let me know if that's clear enough. All I need is a simple link number; rather than access to full link tables. Thanks again, really, for your help. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, and I'll probably do it within a few days. I'll probably post results here, but will also alert you at your talk. And repeats in the future should be no problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam results

All links to in articles
Date Unique articles Unique links Total links Increase
20120211 8462 10277 11308 -
20120307 8527 10349 11388 80
20120403 8579 10399 11444 56
20120502 8818 10853 11943 499
20120601 9104 11321 12455 512
20120702 9295 11712 12883 428

For example, the first row shows results from the external links dump for February 11, 2012, counting only links of the format shown (or with "www." in front) in articles. There were links in 8462 different articles, and there were 10277 different links, giving a total of 11308 links. The final column shows the increase in the total from the previous period.

Let me know if something more is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq, this is fantastic :) Thank you so much for doing this.
They say that the reward for great work is... more work. So my next request, at your leisure and preference, is to do the same thing for WP:Credo (using, or another link you find is better suited. The trick here is that Credo dates back to March 2010. It would be unnecessary to show monthly data; quarterly or even just yearly data would likely be sufficient. Is this possible technically? Is this something you have time to do? Please let me know.
Thank you again. This work means A LOT because it allows us to demonstrate the usage and effectiveness of these partnerships. Not only will it convince the resource donors that these partnerships are worthwhile, but it will set the statistical foundation for getting funding for The Wikipedia Library. It's really invaluable, and I couldn't do it without your help. Ocaasi t | c 00:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll have a look and see what might be done. I'll probably ping you in a few days, but it's going to cost—I just added myself at WP:Credo! Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 :) Ocaasi t | c 03:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have commented to the effect that the report is without foundation. I forgot to mention that it is also disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


On my page I have been informed that I overstepped IR. I've asked for details as to what backversion I am required to revert to, but they are not forthcoming. I did several edits, as usual, without thinking about policy, but rather of the composition of the page. No excuses. But I can't figure out, of the several edits between Crystal whoever and myself, to which version I am expected to revert. Hope this finds you wide-awake :) Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yuck, even those few edits are hard to work out. I prepared a comment for Talk:2012 Olympics one minute of silence campaign but discarded it due to my confusion on exactly what change to the lead was under discussion (I think the diffs on your talk are far too confusing about that).
I was going to say that I thought your edit (diff) was too detailed for the lead, but the article talk seems to be about a different issue, namely another detail that some had "privately expressed discomfort at the sustained attack on Rogge". That detail shows there was some opposition to the attack on Rogge, but that does not mean those people opposed the request for one minute of silence. Very confusing!
At any rate, it looks like the issue was resolved before I got there, and Activism1234 gave an excellent description of the 1RR issue. BTW I'm pretty sure that "6th of August" is never used in an article (apart from direct quotes), so it should be "6 August", except that "August 6" seems more compatible with the article style. Johnuniq (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks pal. Solly for the bovver. Candles out for today, and that doesn't mean I'm gunna pick my nose.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)