Jump to content

User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

8 years on Wikipedia and counting... postponed

I was going to post a celebratory message here, but I don't think it appropriate under the circumstances. I will postpone it until tomorrow. --Rschen7754 01:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SPI question

This can't be done this way, can it?--Bbb23 (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, he needs more evidence, but I'm reluctant to do anything with this particular report as right now I'm not exactly on the best terms with a lot of the UK Roads WikiProject - I'll be leaving it for another clerk. --Rschen7754 06:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I was too terse. I wasn't talking about the merits of the report. I just didn't think one could add a report to the page that says the discussion is archived; I thought one had to open a new report in the normal way and then a clerk combines the new report with the old archived report. Can it be done the way Martin did it?--Bbb23 (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, though when you file a new report for a recurring sock you just follow either Twinkle or the form off the main SPI page and it will do it properly. Where we get annoyed is where people try to either edit the archive, or misuse Twinkle to file multiple new reports when they could all be merged into one new report. --Rschen7754 06:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, I'm apparently wrong. Either something changed or I just never noticed the way it worked. Sorry to have bothered you.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Possible new sock of Longjohnlong?

Hi. You recently closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Longjohnlong, but I think he's reappeared as BunyipMan (talk · contribs) with a general matching pattern of stalking contributions by Stuartyeates (talk · contribs) and putting them up for deletion. Not disruptive per se, but worth reopening the case for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Rschen7754; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Marking my eighth anniversary on Wikipedia

Yesterday marks 8 years that I have been an editor here. Over the last few months, as my activity has increased now that I am out of undergrad, I have stopped several times to think at how long it has been. No matter how many times I have tried to quit, and despite all the hardships I have faced here, I am still as enthusiastic as ever, so it is evident that I will be here for quite a while longer

Over this next year my goals are to continue work on California road articles while staying involved in admin areas such as SPI. I've gotten 4 of the San Diego County road articles to the desired quality, and am working on finishing the rest of the county's road articles before moving on to Imperial County and then north through the rest of the state. It may take a long time to get this done, but now that I've put 8 years into getting the infrastructure ready for it, I might as well do it.

I will continue my work with U.S. Roads and with the Highways project in general, helping other editors write articles about their local roads. This is something that I hope to continue well after the California road articles are "finished."

At this time, I would like to soapbox a bit and promote two ideas that I think would improve the encyclopedia:

  • The role of the WikiProject. Today, people dismiss the role of the WikiProject as antiquated and cliquish, even likening that to some sort of a cabal or walled garden. But as a member of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, I can confidently say that our project together has done much more than the sum of all our possible efforts combined. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-25/WikiProject report describes our methodology that has gotten us an average article quality of between Start and C (well above the Wikipedia-wide average), and 48 FAs and over 800 GAs. We have an IRC channel where we can collaborate in real time. It sounds weird, and arbitrator candidates regularly pan WikiProjects, but it works. That's the only way that I can explain why we have a high editor retention rate and most of our editors stick around, or come back after a year or two away.

If we really want to work on editor retention, we need to get editors with specific interests plugged into these smaller groups, where they can form a community and collaborate and accomplish much more than they could individually. USRD is why I am still excited about Wikipedia 8 years later, even as the world outside USRD becomes no longer safe for the average editor. We cannot continue to strip WikiProjects of any capabilities that they still have and expect these groups of editors to stay around and generate high-quality content. Today there are only 3-4 A-Class review processes still remaining on this site, including the Highways ACR. We have roughly an 80% pass rate at FAC over the last 3 years because of this ACR. If only we had more ACRs left, I think that FAC wouldn't be the backlog that it is today (no fault of Ian or Graham of course, who are trying to make the best of it).

  • The treatment of functionaries. Currently, when functionaries (ArbCom, CU, OS) make mistakes, they are called out on them in the worst way possible. In fact, even when they make unpopular decisions, they have comments made against them that would be block-worthy had they been made against anyone else. I have heard many of them saying that they have considered resigning over the last few weeks as all of those teams have come under fire. Yet they are vital to the day-to-day operations of this encyclopedia.

There will be times when functionaries screw up and need to be called out on their actions. But we must do it with words and logic, not with rhetoric and pitchforks. I have criticized two sitting arbitrators before, and my opinion that they should have resigned was clear, but I have strived to do so in respect, and I encourage you to do the same in similar situations.

A theme through all of these incidents deals with privacy, be it arbcom-l, CU, OS, or outing. Not everything that is private is bad. I think that today editors hear about private discussion going on and go ZOMG SECRET CABAL! MUST KILL!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!! Having seen a touch of what ArbCom deals with through my own OS requests and other issues (and no, they had nothing to do with Malleus or Cla68), and through my role on the SPI clerk team and on OTRS, I can say this for a fact - there are reasons why some information is private, and very good reasons at that. I can't even begin to imagine all that ArbCom actually deals with that the average editor will never see. A lot of the critics are quite frankly uninformed.

What happens on projects without an ArbCom is that this private information is discussed in public, which is uncomfortable at best and violates the editor's right to privacy at worst. I also hold sysop on Wikidata and the English Wikivoyage and have seen crosswiki situations like this.

We have a fundamental problem with editors going from WMF wiki to WMF wiki asking for user rights like they are toys, and many of them are young. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to protect their privacy as much as possible while still putting the goals of the encyclopedia/database/travel guide/dictionary etc. first. This responsibility does not involve vigilante actions or false or flawed accusations against others, but first communicating with the user, trying to work with them so that they become productive editors, and taking proper action if they do not in order to preserve the integrity of the site.

But anyway, off my soapbox, and back to writing an encyclopedia. It's been a great 8 years so far, and here's to the ones ahead! --Rschen7754 10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

DarafshBot2

Hi. i fix the problem, please unblocke my bot. Thanks Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 13:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does it need to be unblocked? What will your bot do on enwiki? --Rschen7754 20:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The bot add interwiki. for example see this edit in Fa.wiki. if my bot blocke in En.wiki, he cant add interwiki in here. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 01:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The whole point of Wikidata is to not add interwikis to articles. --Rschen7754 01:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes i know. please see fa:مسابقات جهانی شنا (۲۵ متر) ۲۰۱۲ and look other wikipedia, you can see فارسی (Farsi) but in EngWIki it doesnt appear. i think depend of my blocked bot. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 01:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
You should disable your bot entirely as Wikidata is live on all Wikipedias. They have started globally locking all bots who continue adding interwiki links. So this is  Not done. --Rschen7754 01:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added by Theopolisme at 05:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
'Nother. —Theopolisme (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Any advice would be welcome

Howdy Rschen7754. Thanks for the warm welcome you added to my talkpage. I could do with some advice as how best to proceed with a discussion that I'm involved in on Talk:Second Severn Crossing, which is now going round in circles.

An editor there has converted all the primary units in the entire roads article from customary/imperial to metric without a substantial reason as advised in WP:UNITS. When challenged he has offered nothing but red herrings in defence. He has refused to accept, even though the article units had been stable for 2.5 years prior to his intervention, that it might be wise to keep the long established units system in place pending the outcome of the discussion. He is insistent that metric units should be dominant in this article, but is unable to justify that position.

Should I, for the sake of peace and harmony, just let his will prevail, or is there anything I could (or should) do to ensure the article gives best value to the readers? Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The other editor is now actually refusing to discuss the matter further. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This editor has been systemically doing things across all of UKRD, one of the reasons why the project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects. I think at some point a more large-scale discussion needs to be held, and if that fails, a WP:RFC/U. --Rschen7754 21:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Shall I just leave him to it then, or is there anything more I should be doing right now to that article do you think? Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You could take it to ANI, but it might get messy. --Rschen7754 21:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what ANI is, but I don't need messy right now. You seem to be aware of more problems though, so I'll back off and leave it there for now. Thanks. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, just to inform you that I mentioned your comments above in a discussion here. You might what to add more of your own observations there too. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thanks for realizing how utterly incorrect all of the WikiWork scores were. Without you, the entire initiative would have been a complete waste of time! Note to self: In the future, double check your API calls and make sure that the word class isn't spelled "clas". —Theopolisme (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Haha you're welcome, and thanks for putting in the work! --Rschen7754 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of Shanker Pur

If you don't mind, I'd like to lift the block. I've communicated with the user by email about the issues here, and I'd like to AGF that this won't happen again. Keegan (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. --Rschen7754 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

A sockpuppet you banned is using two new aliases(User:Bikramjit1983 and User:Jacksinghsully to make the same unsourced changes. Please use CheckUser to find if these two are the same. Thanks.--Neelkamala (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. I do not have CU, but it's obvious that they are the same. --Rschen7754 07:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. :) --Neelkamala (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.

At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.

If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.

Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

So why remove the California (and other) WikiProjects from particular road articles? Because other road articles related to other states don't have them? By analogy, Brooklyn Bridge is of interest to NY, NYC, trains in NYC, and NRHP projects. Perhaps Bridges is the only project that should be of interest for the article. Also, why not add the state projects to those road articles which are of state interest but don't have projects supporting them? In particular I'm looking at Highway 111 in the Coachella Valley. This road is the main drag connecting the towns in the valley. Seems to me adding state projects, especially when they have task forces interested in local areas, is a good method of attracting interested editors to the road articles. Your rationale and guidance will be appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but in practice it actually doesn't, and causes problems such as random sections and trivial/non-notable information being added to articles which now has to be removed for the articles to ever reach FA/GA status. --Rschen7754 02:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll restore the California Inland Empire TF to 74 & 111. These are 2 routes in my neighborhood and are on my watchlist. Also, I'll continue to review the layouts for compliance with USRD/MOS, trivia, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't restore them, as there is no need. Furthermore, it's pretty clear that USRD standards are not being followed in those articles, as both of those articles were written in the wrong direction and remained that way for years, tagged and all, until I finally had to intervene. --Rschen7754 18:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cap-Saint-Martin

Closing, as Ritchie333 has started to treat his flawed interpretation of the GA and FA processes as fact, and has also begun to use personal attacks.

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.

I have instigated an SPI against User:Cap-Saint-Martin. He has defended himself by asserting that I am "making trouble and wasting people's time", backing this up by your statement "This editor has been systemically doing things across all of UKRD, one of the reasons why the project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects. I think at some point a more large-scale discussion needs to be held, and if that fails, a WP:RFC/U". I have responded with "User:Rschen7754's statement was probably the result of a mis-understanding and to save cluttering up this page, I shall invite him to explain himself on his own talk page."

I light of the way in which Cap-Saint-Martin has used (or misused) your statement, will you please explain exactly what you meant it. If Cap-Saint-Martin is out of order in his interpretation, please say so on the SPI page, but if this is likely to be an involved discussion, it is best to have that discussion here. Martinvl (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, your behavior is being disruptive by continually agitating for a certain measurement system and template system, and basically flat out WP:IDHT and refusal to listen to consensus as noted at WT:RJL. That is one of the reasons why the UK roads project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects. --Rschen7754 08:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you willing to cite any other reasons so that we can put your statement into perspective? Martinvl (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no perspective. Your behavior is disruptive and needs to stop. --Rschen7754 09:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
For the second time, please cite other "reasons why the project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects", or are you placing the blame entirely on me? Martinvl (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well no, it's not entirely you, that is true. But certain editors need to actually work on the UK roads articles and making them better rather than going around the site bashing the U.S. roads projects and their editors every chance they get, even in completely unrelated situations. Some editors need to stop insisting on including coordinates for every single darn junction, especially as that makes no sense for linear objects and has been superseded by KML anyway. Certain editors need to stop edit warring and arguing about metric versus imperial and just include both measurements (and frankly I could care less about which comes first). Some editors need to stop insisting on using SPS and use high quality sources instead, a lesson that the U.S. roads project has learned over and over again. Some editors need to stop insisting on outdated junction list standards when they still fail the site-wide MOS. And finally, the UK roads project needs to learn how to take advice from a roads project that has been very successful at GA/FA (we have 48 FAs and 800+ GAs) without being so flipping hardheaded and stubborn without insisting on their own "innovations" that take the project back to 2005. Our methods have worked in Ontario, Croatia, and Western Australia. It's time to swallow your (collective) pride, stop acting like you OWN the articles, and actually work to benefit the encyclopedia rather than rejecting widely accepted standards despite all logical and reasonable arguments just because "The Americans™ proposed them, so we cannot use them." Whether from this point on you personally choose to fall into any of these categories is entirely your choice. --Rschen7754 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying. In the United Kingdom it is notoriously difficult to get information from government departments - that is what public libraries are for. The result that unofficial publications abound, some good and some not so good.
I looked through one of the archives of a British roads website dated 2008 which appears to have been at the time that Wikipedia started tightening up on the need for information to be properly cited and judging by the comments on that website, it appears that certain individuals in the Roads Group became too enthusiastic about proper citations too quickly with the result that many other editors abandoned the project completely. As a result there are very few active UK roads editors today. I was not around at the time so I don’t know who was to blame.
Does this put things into perspective? Martinvl (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
We have faced similar pushback in the U.S. but it has not been so extreme. However, the thing is that the sourcing requirements are largely out of our (the road project editors') control - this is a Wikipedia-wide standard. --Rschen7754 21:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The sourcing requirement might be out of the control of the road project editors, but on reading that website archive it appears that it was handled in a heavy-handed manner. As regards the road junction lists, I think that you need to be aware that things are not the same between the US and the UK - think of all the motoring terms that are different - pavement vs sidewalk, carriageway vs pavement, bonnet vs hood, gear lever vs gear shift to mention but a few. The handling of road junction lists shoudl be seen in the same light a variation in WP:ENGVAR rather than a deviation from standards. Martinvl (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That's patently absurd. We don't have different standards for UK and US biography articles. I've been to the UK and I see no reason why we cannot have an entirely universal standard. Roads aren't that different worldwide, you know. Why are United Kingdom Roads® so special? --Rschen7754 22:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked by Rschen7754 to state my opinion on this, and would like to make the following points:

  • Speaking as a broad generalisation, those in the US tend to have a more positive outlook on life than in the UK, where "have a nice day?" is treated as a mild patronising insult. We celebrate US Route 66 in song and U.S. Route 50 in Nevada is a modern cultural icon, while over the other side of the pond, post Twyford Down, the only road items that get on the national news are protests. I think it's important to recognise that culture clash exists, particularly when thinking how somebody else would read your post.
  • As Martinvl notes, there has been, in the past, a very strong anti-Wikipedia bias in some other parts of the internet, which has broadly pollinated down to other users, who are then disinclined to edit here and write about stuff elsewhere - compare A82 on SABRE with A82 on here. I wouldn't mind if the same people wrote both, but I can't see evidence they do - so there's just duplication of work. I have to say that the endless discussions on marker posts, metrication and counties do not serve to dispel this bias, which is why I make a deliberate point these days to ignore them.
  • Martinvl states "In the United Kingdom it is notoriously difficult to get information from government departments." Balderdash. To paraphrase Malleus Fatuorum : "Have you ever heard of libraries? You know, those great things that let you have books - for free!" The complete archive of Hansard Parlimentary debates and the London Gazette, invaluable sources for project records, opening dates, major decisions etc etc, are all online, and the National Archives requires a simple 10 minute registration to check you're competent enough to pick up 100 year old papers without destroying them. I would universally recommend anyone with the time and inclination to visit TNA and check out File MT39/191 and see just how many high quality free images are accessible to us. All you've got to do is find them! It's worth pointing out that the SABRE forums are frequented by professional highway engineers and contractors, and can generally find "a man who knows" to source some information, although getting that in a format that's reliable and verifiable is slightly trickier.
  • In my view, Rschen7754, you don't come across as well as you could explaining things. From my experience, explaining Wikipedia policies and processes to newcomers is extremely hard and a challenging task, as can be easily seen by observing our systematic bias, and the WMF's apparently unsuccessful attempt to recruit more women into the project. (I know my other half won't touch WP with a bargepole and is amazed I even bother to edit). I can't remember a case where you've actually described what a good article (GA) and what a featured article (FA) is, what's basically required to write one, and why you'd want to do it. You claim to have written a substantial amount of GAs - why have you not taken (to pick a random example) A82 road or A303 road to GA? For someone with your claimed experience, it should not be hard to do so. I think had you written a few GAs on the project yourself, you'd be in a lot stronger standing. I think that recognising there's a communication problem is important to get people on your side, otherwise we'll probably all be here this time next year saying the same things.
  • Another point on communication - you need to follow through with complaints. Rschen7754, you complained that M62 Motorway wasn't featured article quality and should be taken to the reassessment process. In my view, I agree that the article is not FA quality, but for far more substantial reasons than you have stated. Has this article been taken to FAR yet? If not, why not?

Anyway, my closing advice is - ignore all dramas and just write good stuff. I've taken two UK road articles to GA, and reviewed a third, so it's certainly possible to improve the quality of stuff without getting tied up in a lot of nonsense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't explain how to write a GA or FA because nobody from the UK roads project has asked me. They've been too busy fighting other stuff. I'll be honest - in the U.S. we spent a lot of time fighting over stuff too, but in 2008 we snapped out of it, built a system, and got to work.
It is standard to give at least two weeks warning before taking an article to FAR. I plan to take it there Tuesday. --Rschen7754 09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but your brief reply leads me to conclude you aren't really taking in what I'm saying, so I'll leave this conversation and wish you the best. Happy editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Or maybe you just had no answer for my matter-of-fact statements. Besides, a lot of it was not addressed to me anyway. Furthermore we all work on what we want to work on, but that doesn't mean that we are barred from giving input. I've reviewed untold numbers of Michigan road articles, for example, but I have never even been to that state, let alone have ever written a sentence on a Michigan road. Imzadi1979 still respects my input. Ditto for Canada, Croatia, and Western Australia. To be blunt, why is UK Roads any different? --Rschen7754 10:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I do not share that view. A good manager leads by example. You have regularly complained about the quality of articles on this project whilst making no obvious concerted effort to improve them yourself. I personally consider that to be disruptive and unacceptable. This, I believe, is also the reason that Malleus tells people to go and <insert profanity here> themselves on a semi-regular basis. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, we've tried to help you, and all you figuratively do is tell us "to go and <insert profanity here> themselves on a semi-regular basis". --Rschen7754 17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I asked for assistance taking a UK road article to GA not long ago, and was met with silence. I have told you two publicly accessible archives where you may find content to improve articles, and you have ignored them. You are a disruptive and corrosive influence on this project, and if this continues, I may regretfully have to go to ANI to request you are topic banned from the project so editors may improve articles in peace. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the gratuitous personal attack, and good luck with attempting to get me topic banned. --Rschen7754 22:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't really want you or anyone get you topic banned at all, and the above is my opinion that has been observed from your behaviour. It is a criticism of what you have done, not what you are. I had a brief look through California State Route 75, and it looks good. It has a comprehensive history, reads well, and is properly sourced to official documents. Why can't you write an article of this quality on British roads? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
So what, I have to write a UK road article or I get topic banned, is that it!? Look, this business about "oh, you have to write an article on a UK road or we won't trust your opinion" is pure garbage. If that were the case, you would need to topic ban all the reviewers at GAN, ACR, and FAC. --Rschen7754 18:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
If you don't know the subject, I don't think you can GA review things. You won't know whether the print sources are correct, whether the article is broad in coverage and whether better sources are there. That's why I can't clear down the GA pile often because I don't have enough subject knowledge. This is vitally important, and when I GA reviewed an article for SilkTork, I was commended on that, and he was not happy that GA reviewers didn't pay attention to sources and factual correctness in the past. Remember, you have been hauled up to Arbcom, admonished and blocked for edit warring, and a pile of your project's GA reviews were brought up for criticism last year for not being up to scratch. So if you want to criticise a project, don't just use abbreviated jargon (remember anyone can read this and shouting "FAC FAC, FAC FAC FAC" just makes you look like Father Jack Hackett to outsiders who don't understand strange acronyms). You've never commented on the pros and cons of TNA and Hansard sources, which suggests to me you're not in a good place to criticise about a project. Sources and information are IMHO the most important thing about an article - the average reader doesn't care about MOS adherence too much, but they will if something factually incorrect is presented to them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
When I tried to introduce the RJLUK set of templates which were broadly in line with the layout agreed for UK RJLs, User:Imzadi1979 promptly [deleted the example] in WP:RJL which detailed the agreement. This is hardly helping us, unless by "helping" you mean "helping on the US group’s terms". Martinvl (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Martin, where was the "agreement" to use this in the mainspace? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The agreement is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#M5 motorway where it has been for at least the last two years. Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No, that's a project-based manual of style reference. Where is the "consensus" for it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The "agreement" was more or less "you won't stop complaining and we're getting sick of this, so fine go do your own thing." --Rschen7754 22:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Which is exactly what I did when I wrote the templates. Martinvl (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rschen,
There are a number of reasons why the UK Roads group were different to road groups from other countries:
  • First of all, how developed were the road groups in countries other than the UK? If they were starting with a “blank piece of paper”, they probably welcomed assistance. If they had already developed their own style, they might well resent being told to change.
  • There is an ethic in the UK that the government gives out very few details about roads, railways etc, but that geeks (let’s be honest you and I are both geeks or have tendencies that way) publish lots of good work. This makes it difficult to get "reliable sources" in the Wikipedia sense, but the UK editors found it frustrating being told by outsiders what was good and what was bad. Things were probably done in too heavy-handed a manner.
  • The UK model for road junction lists was based on the pattern used by, amongst others, the The Automobile Association - the signs in each direction being displayed separately. There was almost certainly resentment at being told to change things, especially when no good reason was given.
  • A good reason against change was the demand to include one or more location columns in RJLs is that such information is totally meaningless in the UK situation. From my own experience, I have lived in the UK and in South African. I have worked in Germany, Netherlands and in Italy. I have researched my family history in both the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands (which require a detailed knowledge of local administrative areas). From this background I am able to compare the British approach to location identification with that used elsewhere - take it from me, unless you have lived here, you don't know what a mess it is – much of continental Europe benefits from the Napoleon administrative reforms, but the UK does not. One classic case is that of Middlesex - the country was abolished in 1965 when it was absorbed by Greater London, but continued to be an offical part of postal addresses in 1996. It is stil often used today in postal ddresses.
Martinvl (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"There was almost certainly resentment at being told to change things, especially when no good reason was given." - yes there is, we are a general purpose encyclopedia, not a road map company, road atlas company, highway organization, etc. We are not bound by whatever format The Automobile Association uses. Furthermore, we must comply with the Wikipedia-wide MOS.
Nobody has mandated any specific form of identifying location. Be it counties, townships, being near a city eve, whatever works, just as long as there's a column of text that the general reader can use to figure out where the heck a junction is. It's that simple. --Rschen7754 22:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking this to DRN

It is clear that we are not getting anywhere. I think that it is appropriate that this is taken to WP:DRN. Before I sdo so, I woudl like ot give everybodu a chance to see the terms of refernce for doing so. My proposed terms are:

  • Dispute Overview:

    The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists catalogues the columns that should appear in a Road Junction List (for example Interstate 10 in California#Exit list and M25 motorway#Junctions). A dispute between editors split roughly along UK/US lines has been simmering for a number of years regarding the differences in style of these two road junction lists with the US editors arguing for more standardisation across all of Wikipedia and UK editors arguing that regional differences make such standardisation impracticable.

  • How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Are the UK editors being unreasonable in declining to add "location" columns to their RJLs or are the US editors failing to take the UK situation into account? A parallel ongoing discussion on the use of miles or kilometres is outside the scope of this DRN.

I have been as careful as possible in the above wording to be both absolutely neutral in describing the situation and to be clear in what we are discussing. Do you wish to make any comments before I go ahead? Martinvl (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The dispute is that you aren't listening to consensus. "A dispute between editors split roughly along UK/US lines has been simmering for a number of years" is wrong because The Rambling Man is from the UK. Evad37 is also from Australia. But whatever, I know that you're not going to listen to me, or to anything that DRN says if it doesn't go your way, anyway. --Rschen7754 08:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
And although he's not currently active at the moment, "our" side in the debates was also represented by Floydian, who's Canadian. Trying to make this into a UK–US issue is gross oversimplification. Imzadi 1979 → 13:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

Another sock?

He was mentioned in the SPI but User:Zahid2005 seems to fit into the same category entirely. He !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datatune and then set about building his edit count to look like a legit account. But on closer inspection, almost all of the edits were gibberish or pointless red-link creation. I've reverted almost all of them. I didn't think opening the SPI again would be of great value but I thought I'd get your thoughts first. Stalwart111 05:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It may be time for a new SPI actually, since it seems that a lot of new accounts have magically cropped up at the AFD. --Rschen7754 07:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Understood - have now done exactly that with those new accounts included. Thanks. Stalwart111 03:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about policy

Hi, nice to meet you. I am curious, could you tell me where exactly (which policy page) it says that "[accusing] someone of sockpuppeting [is] a bannable offense"[1]? Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I said that sockpuppeting is a bannable offense. Though if someone keeps making frivolous sockpuppet accusations, I suppose they could get banned too. --Rschen7754 20:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I see, thanks for clearing that up. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man sockgate

Hello Rschen7754. I decided the best way forward with the above issue was to open a thread at ANI. You may wish to comment here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

TY

Just wanted to drop a "TY" note for your input on my talk. I'll have a look at that the first chance I get. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Advice regarding potential new wikiproject

Hi Rschen7754. I have been thinking about setting up a wikiproject (or possibly task force) for Australian roads, and was wondering if you (or any of your friendly talk page stalkers) have any advice? I think that my first step will be to post a message on WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and see if other Australian roads editors would actually be interested in such a project. - Evad37 (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Setting up a WikiProject is definitely something to think about carefully. The only reason to do so, in my opinion, would be to provide more resources for effective collaboration that being a part of a task force (the Oceania task force of WP:HWY) would not be able to provide. For example, USRD could not be folded into HWY because there's too much going on there. I think the two main concerns for starting any new WikiProject would be scoping/activity and getting completely off track.
The U.S. roads project is the flagship project on enwiki, and the most successful (trying not to brag here, but by the numbers...) However, there were a few state highway WikiProjects that were created before USRD was, and more were created later. The problem is that 1-2 years in, over 75% of the state highway WikiProjects were active. The rest of us really began to start working together as a unit (a lot of it through our IRC channel, which by the way, is geared towards roads in all countries) and in early 2012 we decided to make paper match practice and merge all the state highway WikiProjects into USRD. However, we definitely angered a few people along the way when we tried to do it too early, and the New York roads project strongly resisted the merger, and are still their own "separate" WikiProject. It's a shame too, because now they're taking this as a license to insist on their own standards and have chased away at least one editor who then swore off New York road editing altogether. So if I were to do it all over again, I would say that larger scope is better, and I would have started off with one national WikiProject and no state highway WikiProjects. I will say that we definitely had the days where we all fought each other, years ago, but we seem to have gotten past that and have been doing solid content work for years now.
The Canada roads project is mostly inactive now. The exception is Ontario, where articles are around the quality of the U.S. articles. Back in the early days, the Canada project had a rough start - there were WikiProjects created for all the provinces, but they wound up at MFD because they were basically copied and pasted - sometimes they forgot to change the name of the province! We had a bit of a run-in with one editor, but then someone decided to invite him to the IRC channel and we were able to work things out pretty well, and that's how Ontario got turned around. Unfortunately he's been semi-active as he's run into some difficulties IRL. Except for a little activity in British Columbia, the project is inactive.
The India project died. There was never a good editing base there, and I suspect that the language barriers had something to do with it. It also never had a solid set of standards, so I think that was a part of it too.
The UK roads project is a good example of my second point, as you probably have noticed. That project has completely and consistently gotten it wrong, time and time again. They don't even follow Wikipedia standards, and we will need to audit their "quality" content entirely. Even in their greatly inflated statistics, they're an entire class level behind the US, and they've been around almost as long as we have! However, when US/Canada road editors have gone in to try and get the project back on the right track, they have gotten entirely stonewalled and have finally given up out of frustration, from editors who are entirely unwilling to compromise. This time around it's been particularly virulent - The Rambling Man (an admin and crat) was accused of sockpuppetry (which is quite a serious accusation as he could wind up losing all his tools on all Wikimedia sites and be banned globally if it was proven to be true) and I was threatened with a topic ban (though it would never pass ANI and be enacted). There have been some very toxic personalities involved there too, including one socker who keeps making socks and causing mayhem. I would not be surprised if it took an arbitration case to restore order to that WikiProject. So you've gotta stay in touch with the greater Wikipedia, and make sure that you're not straying from the goals and standards of the site as you collaborate just among yourselves.
So in summary, whatever you decide, I would suggest learning from our and others' mistakes so that you don't make them yourself There's definitely no clear-cut answer here though - Croatia has several GAs and no WikiProject, though it is just one editor who is also writing Croatian articles on other subjects.
P.S. This will probably come up sooner or later, but you'll notice that there has been some lively debate on converting Australia to Infobox road, as the only country that does not use Infobox road. It's particularly a sensitive issue, and something that we've mishandled in the past, so I'd rather not bring that up until people are ready for that discussion again, because I (and a lot of the other US road editors) want to focus on building working relationships with the Australian road editors right now before we discuss something that controversial. --Rschen7754 08:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw the original question, and I was trying to come up with my advice. The short version is that I would try to ramp up the activity in the Oceania TF of WP:HWY first. Geographically speaking, there isn't going to be that many more countries in that grouping with numbered highway systems, so pulling Australia out of it would almost collapse the TF down to just Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. If there's enough activity and interest, I'd then suggest splitting the TF into Australia and the rest of Oceania (or maybe a joint/AUS-NZ group). Since the US and Canada have active projects, the rest of North America was combined with South America as a Latin American TF, so there could be some geographic fudging to reclassify some areas with Asia's TF if needed. Imzadi 1979 → 13:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your responses, they've certainly given me food for thought. I'll spend some more time thinking about the best way to proceed, and maybe flesh out the details of a proposal. - Evad37 (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocking and rollback of Paul Bardson

This account was proven to be a sockpuppet, but why do you have to revert all of their edits? Their opinion can still be valid in AfDs, or constructive edits to articles would be wasted. Please spell out the logic here. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked socks generally have their edits reverted. They were straight up trolling. Also see WP:DENY. --Rschen7754 00:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Rollback request

Dear Rschen7754, you have rejected my request by quoting "If you put these crap again, you will be reported.", but that was done long ago and previously I was refused for this harsh edit summary, please see this-[2]. After that I refrain my self, and never be too rude with anyone. Could you reconsider it please?

That was within the last two weeks. Please wait a few months before reapplying. --Rschen7754 01:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks. :( --FreemesM (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: FAC review

First and foremost, let me apologize to you. I am sorry for the snide behavior I have done. There is no justification for that. So, a proper apology is due. And I beg your pardon for that.

What initiated this was your initial reply that "most of your concerns so far are ill-founded", which was far from welcoming. Though later you explained that "this seems like copying and pasting random sentences taken out of context and nitpicking at them" (which is a very valid point from your perspective, and is an appropriate reply in a FAC), the initial thinking that my comments were "ill-founded" was the inciting factor. I acknowledge that some of my comments arose because of my limited proficiency in English (such as, the comment on "Bidding was conducted on what was known as Road No. 3A on June 30, 1920", or, the comment "Route 198 also extended onto La Mesa Boulevard and Palm Avenue to SR 94" What is exactly meant by this sentence). That was really poor of me. On the other hand, there were some points (largely content/structural issues, and not prose issues) that were justified (such as, attributing the newspaper quote, wikilink for grade, distance to Julian from where). Lastly, there were many minor points (wikilink for freeway, paper-->newspaper) -- yes, these minor points are nitpicking, sorry for that. However, none of this were ill-founded. Perhaps, the way I wrote was poor. For example, while commenting on the attribution for the quote, I should have linked to the proper policy, instead of just saying "Who told that?". So, let me apologize for the poor sentence structure of my comments. As regards the limited English proficiency, I already acknowledged that in the FAC, and have stopped commenting on prose since.

Regarding the un-addressed comments, most of them or minor (TransNet, incomplete access), and do not have enough merit as to influence the delegate's decision. So, let's not worry over that. Whether I strike (or, do not strike) those out, or whether you change (or, do not change) those things hardly matter.

As I told in the FAC, the pivotal point (for me) remains the early history. I understand the frustration in you as you have dedicated hours and hours of hard toiling into this article. The amount of researching that has gone into this is bewildering. Majority of the sources are not available online, and probably you had to sift through thousands of pages of newspapers/books to bring the article to the present shape. This is simply extra-ordinary, and very rare. However, when I (a reader who is not acquainted with the local geography, and not a participant in US road projects) read the article, that was was the only area that stuck out sorely. I really could not understand the extents of Road No 3A or Ramona Road. And that's why I emphasized that.

It is completely understandable that data on old construction and maps may not be available. In that case, IMO, the article, in some form, should inform that to reader. That information may be in the text, may be in parenthesis, or may be in an explanatory note, or directly quoting the source that was used (in text or in explanatory note), or whatever (bye the way, I have not read that portion of the article in the last several hours, so I am unaware of recent changes).

Another aside, I found this site on Mussey Grade road. This website is likely to be not a RS. But it says "Mussey Grade Road was the main route from Ramona to San Diego for over fifty years until State Highway 67 was opened in 1943." Do you think this could be of any help?

Sorry for this long reply. Moreover, sorry for the condescending tone that I have used in the FAC after my initial comments. I hope you will pardon me. Although I complained above about your initial replies, your later replies were truly welcoming, and justified, despite me intermittently using a unpleasant tone. I really appreciate that. Once again, please accept my apologies. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. It would be helpful to the delegates if you would go ahead and strike the items that have been resolved, because from my past FAC experiences they do look at the outstanding concerns. I have checked my database for Mussey Grade Road and found nothing notable (lots of passing references, but nothing of encyclopedic importance). We do not put "this was not in the source" as that is editorializing and pure speculation, and I am not going to put that in the article. --Rschen7754 21:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Start a new SPI before the old one is archived?!?

At this SPI case you asked that, in the future, a new case be started when new socks are discovered, instead of adding them to a closed case.

Trouble is, that case was closed, but it hadn't been archived. It's my recollection that it's not possible to start a new case while the old one is still on the WP:SPI page.

This kind of situation has happened repeatedly with this particular sockmaster. He likes to create new socks shortly after some of his socks have been blocked or one of his SPI cases has been "closed". I think he does it to taunt us by demonstrating that some of his IPs are still unblocked.

What procedure are you suggesting should be followed? --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It still is possible to start a new case before the old one has been archived, if I'm not mistaken. --Rschen7754 02:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

I have tried to reform the DRN process, but the two "volunteers" involved are stubborn and practicing WP:IDHT. I have more productive things to do with my time here, in what is supposed to be a relaxing hobby, so I'm moving on. Consider this an immediate decline to participate in any future DRN request that I am named in. --Rschen7754 08:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists".

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 08:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

DR/N

Please stop reverting the DR/N volunteer's removal of inappropriate discussion of editor conduct or behavior. If you refuse to act in a civil manner you may be asked to leave the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, "Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia." Secondly, I have not broken the civility policy on Wikipedia. Thirdly, you have a conflict of interest, and I have asked you to recuse, and you have not, which is even more disturbing. --Rschen7754 10:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior at WP:DRN

Please stop reverting edits made by dispute resolution volunteers. We have a well-worked-out system for resolving disputes, and you, as an involved party, should not interfere with our efforts. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Amadscientist has a conflict of interest and should be recusing, and secondly, I am reverting inappropriate editing of my comments. This sort of clerking would not stand anywhere else on the English Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Rscehn7754, it would appear the DRN is badly proposed in any case, just another attempt to remonstrate about perceived US-centric editing by someone who feels they own the UK road lists. If I were you, I'd just opt out. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that is the best course of action. However, I am sufficiently disturbed by how the DRN process operates, and I think it may need a bit of a shakeup down the road. --Rschen7754 10:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
That may certainly be the case. I've never really been involved over there, but whenever I was, I found it to be entirely toothless and an opportunity for some people to pretend they could flex some invisible Wiki-muscles. Better off ignoring it for now and getting on with some real editing. Happy Easter by the way, should that sort of thing ring your bell! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if it wasn't me that was at the center of this, I'd be quite amused by the amount of power-tripping going on [3] [4]. If I ever did that as a SPI clerk, I'm sure that I would be asked to resign pretty shortly thereafter. Ah well, that's for another day. Thanks for the comment, and Happy Easter to you too! --Rschen7754 11:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that you should test your theory by bringing this alleged wrongdoing before the community and seeing whether there is a consensus to allow dispute resolution volunteers to enforce the dispute resolution noticeboard guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow, somebody really wants to pick a fight, huh? Even after I've already stated that I won't be addressing this now, given that... I already have another dispute on my hands? --Rschen7754 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You completely misread me, so I apologize for not being sufficiently clear. Let me try again. The two of you clearly have issues with the way WP:DRN operates. What I am suggesting is that, rather than being aggressively insulting towards the DRN volunteers and making vague threats of "a bit of a shakeup down the road", you get involved in improving DRN by raising your concerns in a calm, rational manner on the DRN talk page. While I must admit that your behavior appears to me to be an blatant attempt to pressure the DRN volunteers to allow you to completely ignore the DRN guidelines in a dispute that you are heavily involved in, that does not mean that you don't also have legitimate criticisms, and I really would like to see those criticisms addressed, and if needed, the DRN process modified to address them. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If you think that we are being "aggressively insulting", then perhaps you should not be involved in part of the dispute resolution process. My "case" has been closed, so what sort of interest do I have in the matter? Finally, I am entirely certain that any proposals that we make on the DRN talk page will be stonewalled, so I'm not going to go that route. I also find it concerning that now several people have weighed in on the situation and found significant problems with the DRN process. --Rschen7754 00:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do think that the following comments...
"someone who feels they own the UK road lists"
"an opportunity for some people to pretend they could flex some invisible Wiki-muscles."
"power-tripping going on"
"The 'volunteers' act as if they're beyond reproach"
"very cabalistic and self-appointed"
"the 'volunteers' who, while they claim they're trying to "resolve dispute" actively encourage dispute through their attitude."
...are aggressively insulting, especially coming from an "administrator" who, in theory, should know better. (You might want to note how putting one word in quotes changes the tone of the sentence.) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you really believe that, then you should bring it to ANI. --Rschen7754 00:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Rschen7754 06:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not the first

You're not the first sysop to be shocked by the way WP:DRN works Rschen7754. And specifically Amadscientist regarding this case. I raised this with Guy and Amadscientist in October 2012 only for Amadscientist to unilaterally expel me from the discussion, after having involved himself in content issues[5][6] (and thus neither being objective nor outside but behaving as an arbiter of dispute resolution). I then raised this whole matter with Steven Zhang who tried to defuse the issue but this did not solve the problem. I also raised with KillerChihuaha who was also "concerned about Amadscientist's response to Stephen Zang, and his understanding of what is and is not [ad hominem]" but the issue was stale by then. If there is a pattern here something needs to be done. DRN is important - we all have to have confidence in those staffing it, and they need to be accountable, just like everyone else. As you pointed out above, nowhere else on WP is an official/functionary allowed to be *both* involved in content and an outside observer/arbiter of behaviour, content etc. As yours is a live matter I think the wider issue of how DRN volunteers act needs to be openned up--Cailil talk 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The alternative is to just ignore that this "noticeboard" even exists. The "volunteers" act as if they're beyond reproach, ironic considering that any discussion about any particular editor's behaviour rather than content behaviour leads to the "invitation to leave the discussion". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
DRN obviously needs quite a bit of a shakeup. This reminds me of WP:BAG in 2008, very cabalistic and self-appointed. It took a few tries to get them to reform, but they eventually did. Whatever is to be done, it's gotta be radical; I don't think putting a {{rfc}} tag on WT:DRN will bring sufficient attention to the matter. I'll be thinking about this over the next few days. --Rschen7754 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The worst thing is the attitude of the "volunteers" who, while they claim they're trying to "resolve dispute" actively encourage dispute through their attitude. Odd one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is new to me. When I gave a hand at solving disputes, I never found this kind of problems. I always encouraged the participants to express themselves how the wished, and to do their best effort to collaborate to find a solution. And I always reached peaceful solutions. Of course, I agree that DRN needs a new face. I already managed to get the Spanish MedCom to wash theirs with a new, effective process, but it seems that it'll be hard to do it at DRN. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 22:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Have you brought up your suggested reforms on the DRN talk page? If not, how do you know that "it'll be hard to do it at DRN" if you have never tried? You are more than welcome to get involved in improving DRN by raising your concerns in a calm, rational manner on the DRN talk page. If you have legitimate criticisms, I would very much like to see those criticisms addressed, and if needed, the DRN process modified to address them. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I brought my concerns about the process to the talk page, and was stonewalled. --Rschen7754 00:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Were you using another account? A user contribution search[7] doesn't show you as ever having posted to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard
The posts that I made last night, of course. --Rschen7754 00:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I thought that perhaps sometime in the past you had actually posted some legitimate concerns. I don't consider claiming that you should be exempt from the DRN guidelines to be raising a legitimate concern. If you ever decide to make a suggestion other than "Rschen7754 should be allowed to do whatever he wants" I encourage you to bring up your suggested reforms on the DRN talk page. I am going to unwatch this page now, per WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I have never claimed that. --Rschen7754 00:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Yes, I did brought my concerns twice. Look up on the archives and you'll see. — ΛΧΣ21 04:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, let me just say that the most important part of all of this is that we are all human and we each need to remember that much. Myself and a number of other volunteers have indeed warned editors per our guideline that they may be asked to leave the discussion and I have indeed been forced to do such before. Whether this continues to be the practice or not will be determined but that option has always existed. I want to address the fact that many times, myself and other volunteers have posted at the originating talk pages after the dispute has been filed. This is done to better understand the dispute and was indeed the case with the Men's Rights movement dispute. I was not involved with the dispute and I have done this a number of times to clarify the situation when the dispute is very complicated before the case is even opened, but after the case has been filed.

Ramblingman states "they claim they're trying to "resolve dispute" actively encourage dispute through their attitude". This perception is propagated due to a serious issue of attempting to not let an editor manipulate the process. No one is better than the other. My perception is that some manner of control needs to take place. However this situation clearly shows that control is not the best route. We encourage our volunteers to set ground rules. And we do discourage the mention of editors in the openings. My first attempt to collapse the opening of Rschen7754 was followed by a request to reform the opening without mention of individual editors. I didn't have a chance to leave a note here before everything evolved as it did.

I am no different than Rschen7754. I am no better and I am no worse. I can certainly agree (with Steven who suggested this) that I could have made a note on the user talk page before I took any action. When the editor makes their way to DR/N their tone may be perceived as hostile simply for the reason that, by the time they make it to us, they are at the end of their rope and are indeed quite angry with the situation. It doesn't help the situation to further anger them with an action that will make them feel that they are being rigidly forced to adhere to a guideline they may not even know about. Volunteers at the DR/N do not have any special powers, but...as I have said since I first volunteered, we all have the same power, not the same weakness. We all have differing levels of tools and knowledge, but we all are equal. Sometimes people mistake that for thinking one is better than the other, but standing eye to eye with everyone, new, old, experience and un-experienced, admin, bureaucrat or IP is not an attempt to make one feel lesser. I have been very firm about this. I treat everyone the same, and unfortunately I have dealt with some of the more difficult cases and spent weeks on them.

I want to apologize for the perceptions I have created with Rschen7754 and for the treatment they felt was not appropriate. I will not lie. I don't feel I did anything I have seen other volunteers do and emulate in return. We have concerns of editor manipulation of the process and have discussed templates and when we need to warn editors quite recently, but regardless of that or my own perceptions, I am sorry that Rschen7754 took this personally. It was not intended as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I accept your apology and understand that it was nothing personal. However, if those actions have become the norm, then something needs to change at DRN, which is why I nominated it for MFD. DRN is part of the English Wikipedia and must follow the principles and guidelines of the latter. I don't actually want to see DRN shut down, but if there is no willingness to reform, then it should be shut down, as it is making some disputes worse than they were to begin with. I talked to Steven Zhang last night and he understands my concerns, which is largely why I withdrew. The question is whether the others who participate in the process are willing to make the necessary changes to the process - not just so that it can avoid being shut down, but so that it will truly benefit the encyclopedia. --Rschen7754 20:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not know whether all of your concerns will be addressed, but it has been a catalyst for work to continue. I certainly don't want to begin anew any arguments we may have had from the other night but I would at least like to say that DR/N does follow the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia, as do I. I have studied our guidelines and policies heavily over the last few years, including participating in discussions and re-writes. I spoke with Steven last night as well. I urge you to continue to discuss you concerns with us on the DR/N talk page so that your views are not overlooked or forgotten. Much needs to be addressed as we often do. The most important thing is to have enough editors involved to form a good, solid consensus or all that happens is someone comes along later and questions it, changes it or starts a consensus discussion anew. So, I welcome you to take part in these discussions that are surely to begin shortly and offer your opinions to what you feel is appropriate. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Rschen7754. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Thanks

Thanks for the talk page cleanup. In this particular case, the comment was just too tempting to reply to, so I did, but in general I do appreciate the efforts to clear such trolling comments. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnddoX

Hi, Rschen, don't the various editors have to be retagged based on AnddoX being the master and the others the puppets? The tags aren't right otherwise as well as they should point to the investigation page. I'm willing to do the tagging, although not tonight because I don't have time, if you wish. I just didn't want to tread on anyone's toes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 01:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I changed the tag for the master to reflect the indefinite block. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Location in RJLs

I'm having a try at compiling a fully-compliant RJL for the British M5, as I think that will aid discussion.

One specific problem is in the UK, the administrative boundaries have often match the centrelines of major roads. For example, city boundary of Exeter passes right through the middle of junction 30. That means its not solely in Exeter, nor is it solely in the neighbouring village. How do US RJLs handle cross-border junctions?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)<place A>–<place B> state/county/township/city line –Fredddie™ 22:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It lists both; see California State Route 57 for an example. In the {{jctint}} templates we've put in a bit of a wrapper so you can just say location1= and location2= and the templates take care of the rest, though it doesn't work in the {{jctbridge}} series and you have to do it manually. --Rschen7754 22:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm doing the entire example manually for the moment. There will be some minor ENGVAR issues to consider later (en-gb never uses "line" in that way).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I created {{GBRint}} for this purpose (I'm have M62 in my sandbox). Feel free to copy {{IAint}}, {{ONint}} or any of the other XXint templates for ideas. –Fredddie™ 22:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this for public consumption. If so, please discuss in a public place! Martinvl (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Huh? --Rschen7754 06:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Wikidata

Hey Rschen, First thanks for the note. Yea, once in a while I'll wander off to Wikimedia, Meta type stuff, Simple and such - but usually not for long. I have maybe half-dozen or so pics on commons, but sure wouldn't want to be a regular there - talk about toxic? WOW. Anyway - I do want to get involved with Wikidata a bit, not necessarily be an admin. or anything (there's enough headaches with that here .. lol). If you have some good links to help me get up to speed on it, please feel free to drop them on me. — Ched :  ?  05:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's actually not that difficult being an admin there... way less drama. The main things are adding interwiki links (which is coming to a close) and adding properties, which the development team still hasn't quite finished doing. d:Help:Descriptions and d:Help:Glossary should have the gist of it, or you can always ask questions. --Rschen7754 05:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Gold Standard's talk page.
Message added 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gold Standard 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Australian roads

In the conversation I have been having with evad about the startup porcess - he was saying that parts of the template tweaking to allow tagging requires admin status to do it - could you do it if you havent already ? cheers sats 03:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, this edit protected request [8] - Evad37 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Question re TFA

Is Interstate 70 in Colorado one of yours? I seem to remember Bencherlite asked once about interesting highway pages and I think it's one of the more interesting highways in the country - well I've driven it a lot so would say that - but it's a really well written article. Would you or the highway project be interested in noming for TFA? I'd do it but am not very good at the markup and busy during weekdays. It does have a cn tag I noticed. Anyway, thought I'd plant the thought. Also, didn't you have one promoted recently - the one in San Diego? That could be nomed instead and leave I-70 for a later date. In any event, I think it's been a while since we ran a highway article so might not be a bad idea to nom one to help out Bencherlite. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We actually have another editor who wants Michigan State Trunkline Highway System at TFA in May... the article's not a FA yet so we're pushing it a bit, but I'm reluctant to suggest something else so close to the May date. Interstate 70 in Colorado isn't mine, for the record. We have a list of potential nominations at WP:HWY/TFA. --Rschen7754 23:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, you guys are seriously organized. I do most of my work in an area with a dead wikiproject so am a lone wolf of sorts. Anyway, thought I'd suggest here before the week rolls around because I knew you're part of that project. That's laziness for you. Thanks anyway. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI Mermaid feedback

Hello, I dont have a problem with your adjudication, but what doesnt make sense? All the users have a history of editing the same article and appear to be single purpose accounts, primarily existing to edit articles related to Cyberoam. I've never spent much time at SPI so I wasnt aware the old accounts would be an issue, I also figured that they would be blocked to prevent future promotional edits. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have only declined use of the CheckUser tool. That tool is only one way to determine if the accounts are related - admins can look at the behavior as well. --Rschen7754 17:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you noted in your reasoning that the request didnt make sense? Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Your reply to the request for more information did not make sense. --Rschen7754 17:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Cali State Route 52

Hi Rschen7754, I've started a "question" thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists about this. Wasn't trying to do anything other than make the table readable to people outside the US. Let's see how the discussion pans out? Best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

re:

User talk:WofgangAmadeushMozart. I didn't mess with the block, but did protect due to multiple IP edits. Feel free to adjust as you see fit. — Ched :  ?  04:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - it's just a repeated LTA trying to cause disruption, and who we can't seem to chase away. --Rschen7754 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Another edit request for WikiProject Australian Roads

Can you take a look at my edit request on Template talk:WikiProject Australia? (assuming that no one else has by the time you see this message). Thanks, - Evad37 (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello

Rschen7754: Please reconsider the block you put on my family and our borders. We only have one computer here or at school and we all use it. You blocked my mom, my dad, and my cousin. If there is something new I have to do to help them, please let me know. My mom goes out to work somewhere else at the beginning of the week and I don't think my dad or cousin know what happened yet, but maybe I could help. Thank you. ForGreaterGlory (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Internet issues

I'm having problems with my Internet connection and have repeatedly been knocked offline for 10-30 minutes at a time over the last few days. The current outage will hopefully be over soon but no guarantees. I have a technician coming tomorrow to look at the issue, so hopefully it will be resolved by then. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Now resolved. --Rschen7754 02:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Taram

Hey Rschen, for what it's worth, User:ForGreaterGlory, whom you blocked as a sock of User:Taram, posted a question at the Teahouse question forum regarding the fact that apparently Taram is his mother so they edit from the same computer. I have no idea whether that's the truth, but just thought I would throw that out there for your review. Thanks for all you do. Go Phightins! 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm particularly skeptical of this due to the account creation date (after the block) and the overlap in subjects. --Rschen7754 21:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi

Thanks for reverting this. Much appreciated!--5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. --Rschen7754 00:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI MFIreland

In declining this case, was it because I requested CU? The editor in question is being quite disruptive and appears to have 'got away with it'. RashersTierney (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Only CU was declined; admins are still free to block if they notice behavior similarities. --Rschen7754 09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for clarifying, but it appears to be declined as an SPI from its listing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. RashersTierney (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that just means that CU was declined. Perhaps a better term needs to be used... --Rschen7754 09:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
'CU declined' would clarify things greatly. RashersTierney (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bedson sock puppet archives

You protected the page that leads to the archives, did you mean to protect Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive itself? I see a couple of comments by 2 of Bedson's IPs flaunting his sock puppetry. I think I just found a new account which is why I've noticed this and am asking. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant to protect the main page as there was disruption at that time. I suppose the archive could be protected too though. --Rschen7754 05:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754/Archive_19&oldid=1146620645"