User talk:Mackensen: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:25, 8 December 2006

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

A RFCU from way back...

User talk:84.114.131.26 requires attention from you. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fabulous. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it'd make your day :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backslashing proxies used for abuse

72.52.143.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) apart for the blanking vandalism and attacks seems to be a backslashing proxy[1] This edit sugests he is Stevenak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Proxy appears also to be used by whoever used 83.98.189.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which is also backslashing. I can't tell if it is a open proxy or just used by one person. I have noted it on AIV, and leave the info with you as your name is on the WP:OP. Agathoclea 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's backlashing the above concerns are irrelevant--block and be merry ;). Looks like someone nailed them both already. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion request

Since you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote, I would appreciate it if you could comment on WP:DDV, in particular as to whether it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't) and as to whether it is correct that we generally discourage (but not forbid) voting. Thanks. (Radiant) 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

Why did you delete my comment? --Ghirla -трёп- 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human error. I'm terribly sorry about that. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Mackensen (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Ghirla 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Cabal's Own Pikemen"

..your ideas interest me and I wish to hear more :) --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template: UK heritage stations

Can you please enlighten me as to why you have removed this Template from the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railway stations, and substituted it with a template for stations being operated by one of the TOCs or Network Rail? Stewart 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the template was identical, save formatting, and its deletion had been requested. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest then Template:UK stations is used instead of Template:Infobox UK station. This allows a linkable caption to be used. See Partick railway station - I have also editted Rhyd Ddu railway station. Thoughts?? Stewart 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't those the same template (doesn't the former simply redirect to the latter?) Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That had escaped me having previously worked on Template:UK stations to get the caption incorporated prior to the move to Template:Infobox UK station (see Adding a caption to the Image). All is now clear. Stewart 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Lillywhite Campaign Article

Now that you've closed out the deletion debate (and have asked that the discussion sorrounding any content changes be moved to Discussion page of the article), it is okay to remove the deletion notice from the article page - correct? (the notice itself states that it can be removed once the discussion is closed). Just thought I'd ask anyway. While the content can certainly be built upon in the article, it seems that there were more users that wanted to keep the article (alongside a few merges) instead of delete - particularly because Wiki policy was cited. The user Milchama was primarily pushing on the opposition - which is fine - but my concern is his/her intent might be malicious considering how he/she spammed user talk pages with deletion requests. Let me know your thoughts, and if you'd like to remove the notice... thanks!

Yes, I forgot to remove the notice. It's gone now. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Wrestling Association

Ah, yes, I will add it to my to-do list :) semper fi — Moe 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser page of Khosrow II

Hey, I'm waiting about for 2 months for checking user of Khosrow II Can you please take a look? Here the link [2], Thanks Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to have ever been listed on the main page. I'll go ask a clerk about it. Mackensen (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was it never listed, it was apparently created as a closed archive [3] which explains why it never showed up in the unlisted category. Weird. Listed now. Thatcher131 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambriel

Hi, you closed this but your closing has been blanked by the nominator. Can you sort this, please? TerriersFan 00:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting this. TerriersFan 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddling with the pharaohs...

You've changed all the pharaoh succession boxes from one form to a basically identical form. Now, it looks like there's no cosmetic difference, but was there actually a vital reason to alter all of them? Thanatosimii 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vital? No, I couldn't claim that. I do think there's utility in having all succession boxes using the same internal template, in case that system ever needs to be overhauled. It didn't make sense to me for the Pharaohs of Egypt to have an independent system. The template, created by Emsworth, dated back before the standardized succession box system was commonplace and its continuance felt like an anachronism. There shouldn't be any cosmetic difference either. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

"You've got mail" Thatcher131 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me wake up first ;). Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not especially urgent. Thatcher131 12:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but interesting in its own way. I've responded. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobabobabo

I know that you are uninvolved in this matter currently, but I need immeadiate assistance with this user, and you're the only checkuser/bureaucrat who I can see is online. If you use mIRC, please contact me there.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Unicorn on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charlie the Unicorn. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. misanthrope 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandal

Hey, can I get you to take a gander at the guy who keeps (several times over the last two weeks) vandalising Battle of New Orleans? Thanks in advance.--chris.lawson 14:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

You'll understand this question: What on earth was that? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maior popping up again

Hello Mackensen, User:Drini indef. blocked Maior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for DRV tampering and subsequently you blocked a sockpuppet Maior1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been coming back time and time again with sock after sock. Could you take a look at this talk? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Francis Stewart Hepburn, 1st Earl of Bothwell

This is wrong. His surname was never Hepburn. It was always Stewart. I note you have (properly) previously queried this. If you are an administrator, maybe you have the authority to correct this major heading error. David Lauder 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So many thanks. David Lauder 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lǐ (李) (surname)

Following your closure, and prior to taking it to DRV, I would like to understand exactly what you consider to be the grey area in the policy about the use of Chinese characters. Admittedly, it was a complex debate. I do not believe that a default keep per no consensus is justified, as this would apparently be in violation of WP:NAME, and overturn a strong consensus arrived at when WP:UE was drawn up.

Furthermore, it appears that some editors were attempting to use the AfD to decide policy, which I believe is completely the wrong forum. I feel that the default keep of the article sets a dangerous precedent: It is one thing to use characters which could theoretically be recognised without their diacritics, but sinograms, like arabic and sanskrit are different. I would ask you to prevent vigorously wikipedia's descent into anarchy. Ohconfucius 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't the place for that, and I considered that as a matter of disambiguation both sides had a point. It wasn't a keep either, it was no consensus, because there was none. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Gibraltarians

Mackensen, Im assuming goodfaith but I dont understand your reasoning. If wikipedia guidelines state that an article cant be deleted unless there is a rough consensus to delete, and such consensus is not found, why did you delete it? Please explain this to me, otherwise I can only assume that you are abusing your position as an admin!--Burgas00 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my reasoning already. Consensus isn't just the counting of heads. I looked for those keep and delete arguments which took Wikipedia policies to heart. I also looked back to the previous AfD and DRV for guidance. Based on all these things, I determined that there was a general consensus to delete. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say...

I would just like to say that I love admins who evaluate arguments instead of counting votes. That is all. Thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For holding up Wikipedia Policies and believing that Wikipedia is not democracy on a recent AFD case. --TruthSpreader^Talk 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina

I noticed you deleted this page because the vote was to delete, but I counted, and it was a tie.--Sefringle 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its a keep by vote count Keep 18 Delete 17 Neutral 1 . Mackensen please reverse the delete since the results are contrary to your claim. If it is not a vote then on what basis do you delete the page? At the very least the result is simply no consensus , meaning leave the page as it is--CltFn 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)--CltFn 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also , would you kindly post the vote count at the top of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina (2nd nomination) page so that we can all clearly see whether there was a consensus reached or not?--CltFn 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, AfD is not a vote. Please read up Wikipedia's policies. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps , but how can you say consensus was achieved when there were move votes to keep than delete?? As far as I can see this was a incorrect implementation of the AFD process. My suggestion would be that you restore the article, because it was deleted prematurely and wait until we achieve a consensus. --CltFn 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can say that because I've read the relevant policies, and I'll do no such thing pending the outcome of deletion review. Please take a gander at Wikipedia:Consensus. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fight Special

What you did to Big Fight Special was not good. Many articles on what appear very trivial issues make up a good 60% of English Wikipedia. If you've got two weeks annual leave from your job, I can link you to a few of them. What now if I begin to rewrite the article? Will you delete it again? Evlekis 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any closing administrator would have done the same thing. What you decide to do is entirely up to you. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination)

Why'd you delete E-Sword? The only comment calling for deletion was from the nominator. I see no consensus that it should have been deleted! Not having sources is not a criteria for deletion. I was not involved with that page or the project at all, but I think you made a mistake in closing it the way you did. --Karnesky 15:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the need for verifiability is non-negotiable. It's irresponsible to create articles without sources. I can't help it if people arguing keep ignore fundamental policies. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_policy states that WP:V should probably be addressed by cleanup, not deletion. --Karnesky 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore: the AfD did not bring up any problems about verifiability. You acted out of process. If you saw problems with WP:V, you should have been the first to comment about it -- you shouldn't have closed it. I encourage you to restore it. Otherwise, I think this calls for deletion review. --Karnesky 15:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, but this wasn't the first nomination. Editors had two years, and two nominations, to fix it up. Again, they're free to create an article that has sources. And the AfD most certainly brought up those issues. You can't prove or disprove notability without sources. Any assertion of notability without sources is no assertion at all. My actions were completely within process and I stand by them. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the page was a recreation of deleted content. Can you confirm? --Karnesky 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the previous debate deleted it because it was an advertisement. That was two years ago. I believe that the old database crash lost those deletion revisions, but that debate definitely took place. This is a different article, but suffered from the same problem: absent reliable, verifiable sources, it is an advertisement (that it also read like one is almost beside the point). Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of E-Sword. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Karnesky 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Duly noted and expected. I have responded. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short and sweet

Kudos to you. See above for recent reeasons why, but also for your general kudo-worthy-ness in times past.
152.91.9.144 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

I'm quite bemused by your vote for geogre - you oppose because he's too valuable an article space contributor? By similar logic, presumably those candidates who are excellent admins are also opposed by you for their vandal fighting (etc.) prowess? Or are we just supporting expendable candidates to stop them from messing up articles? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's a fair question. I hope we aren't at the Peter Principle quite yet. I commented to Geogre several days I ago that I viewed arbitration as a sentence, not a reward. I try to support candidates who I think bring the best balance of talents to the committee. My ideal candidate is a mix of janitor and article editor, preferably one with loads of free time (one thing that strongly recommended Paul August to me). I also look for at least informal experience in dispute resolution--preferably the person defuses situations. Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what circumstances lead to your disillusionment with Arbcom but I'd hope candidates appreciate the time required for the job, certainly, having read geogres numerous (lengthy) and well reasoned responses to just about anything ever asked of him, I think he has the time..... Regarding dispute resolution perhaps a serious point; appeasement has something of a chequered history. I'm rather dismayed geogres candidacy has provoked such opposition, he stood up recently, to what a number of people saw, as abuse of power by certain individuals and appears to paying a price for that. In a community of volunteers if wayward individuals are attempting to assume power beyond their remit, is appeasement the best course of action? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not calling for appeasement, and I'm not entirely disillusioned with the Arbcom. My remark about sentencing has more to do with the high workload and corresponding stress. I think my best statement on administrators and potential abuse of power was made during the last Arbcom election (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Mackensen), and I'll not restate it here. I take the view, broadly, that the best possible outcome of dispute resolution is that the group of editors concerned patch things up and go back to editing the article. Obviously this isn't always going to happen, but it remains an admirable goal. To that end, we need to get people talking to each other. This strikes me as less adversarial than collegial. Now, in reference to the abuse of power, that represents, in my view, an unusual set of circumstances not likely to be repeated, and I prefer that we not build policy or procedure on a boundary case. That being said, I'm prepared to concede that I'm wrong. If in the next year we are confronted by a massive abuse of power from established users it will of course be necessary to re-examine the existing structures. It would be my hope that we don't come to that. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the chat. Extraordinary circumstances aside, I think he'd be pretty good at dispute resolution but we'll leave it there. To quote Curb your Enthusiasm "A good compromise is when both parties are left equally miserable.". Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reference desk comments

Can I interest you in commenting about the ongoing situation at the ref desks? I'm starting to suspect nothing will work except bring an rfc against one or more of the worst offenders, but I'd like another opinion on this before proceeding down this path. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mackensen/New admins

To **Mackensen** for his exceptional pearls for new administrators -- **Samir** धर्म 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stop by and tell you that I was honored to see myself listed here; I'm taking my inclusion as an example of many-hattedness as a compliment, rather than as an example of being really stupid to take on so many (per point #2). ;) Essjay (Talk) 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Mackensen -- Samir धर्म 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

84.114.131.26 unblocked

Hi Mackensen, I've lifted an ip block for Leaderofall (talk • contribs) on 84.114.131.26 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • block user • block log) which you blocked back in August as a compromised host. nmap returns the following:

% sudo nmap -v -P0 -sA 84.114.131.26
Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-12-06 16:37 EST
DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.00s.
Initiating ACK Scan against chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26) [1680 ports] at 16:37
The ACK Scan took 35.41s to scan 1680 total ports.
Host chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26) appears to be up ... good.
Interesting ports on chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26):
Not shown: 1668 UNfiltered ports
PORT    STATE    SERVICE
111/tcp filtered rpcbind
135/tcp filtered msrpc
161/tcp filtered snmp
162/tcp filtered snmptrap
201/tcp filtered at-rtmp
202/tcp filtered at-nbp
203/tcp filtered at-3
204/tcp filtered at-echo
205/tcp filtered at-5
206/tcp filtered at-zis
207/tcp filtered at-7
208/tcp filtered at-8

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 35.437 seconds
               Raw packets sent: 1774 (70.960KB) | Rcvd: 1709 (68.360KB)

It looks clean, but shortly after I unblocked the IP, I remembered that "Leaderofall" fits Enlighter1's pattern of sockpuppet names. Could you please double check this host for me? Thanks -- Netsnipe ► 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't a proxy, but I also think that Enlighter1 is still on the other end. I suppose we could do a trial unblocking and see what happens, but those so often end in heartbreak, pathos, and discredit...Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But also in exposing more sockpuppets. I suspect User:Universalgenius - same Reuters ect edits today. Agathoclea 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. What was it I said about heartbreak? Re-blocked. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my suspicions panned out (I hate when that happens). Universalgenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is definitely an Enlighter1 sock and he's coming from the usual place. I've blocked indefinitely as it's obviously a static IP. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to run a checkuser on Leaderofall (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) then. Likely a sleeper account in that case. How did you detect that the host was compromised in the first place? Just intuition? -- Netsnipe ► 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damned if I can remember anymore. I must have seen something in the nmap results that I didn't like (open IRC port maybe, who knows?). In any event, it's clear that this is Enlighter1's address, and we'll just have to sit on it. Leaderofall is definitely a sockpuppet and I've tagged him as such. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He went on a spree a few days ago using proxies. If you want I can dig them out for you if you want to tag or run further checks. Agathoclea 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the following I reported at AIV:

217.160.226.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
72.20.3.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
208.53.138.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.103.140.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
72.52.143.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

They are all blocked, except 72.20 who only had a 48 hour block. Agathoclea 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV stations in Kalamazoo, List of FM stations in Kalamazoo, List of AM stations in Kalamazoo

List of TV stations in Kalamazoo was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TV stations in Kalamazoo. I've proded List of FM stations in Kalamazoo, List of AM stations in Kalamazoo. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-06 08:57Z

Stonnar

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Stonnar. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. *

Stonnar was deleted per WP:PROD. Please don't misuse the warning templates. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing

why? what is "{{db-spam}}"? [| deletion] --ProdigySportsman 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was tagged for speedy deletion back on November 21 by Calton (talk). I deleted it the next day, on the grounds that it read like an advertisement. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and WP:PNT vandal

Regarding this user, I will contact the universities as an attempt at quelling this problem. I hope I can be of assistance to you. Thanks, --SunStar Net^talk 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, when you can let me know which one, as I don't know! --SunStar Net^talk 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Offer much appreciated; I'll let you know if it comes up. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a new result comes up at WP:RFCU, let me know, and I'll take it up from there, if you like. --SunStar Net^talk 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfcu/skinny mcgee

Is the additional query just about Dionysius? Thx, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Hi Mackensen. Further to your note on the talk page of this article yesterday, I was wondering if there was some sort of tag that could be put onto the article to either prevent editing, or to warn that the article's contents were under review? I guess protecting it would suffice, but that might be a misuse of that procedure. I only ask because two users have already edited the article, and it would probably be better for everyone if people didn't expend effort on it until its limbo status was resolved. Otherwise, I guess there might be a duplication of effort. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may now feel free to edit the article. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good, but it would be helpful to have some information as to why specifically the article was reverted to July 2006's version. Otherwise we may wind up adding material that puts us back in the revert zone. Furthermore, I can't actually remember exactly what was in the previous version. I'd spent some time sorting out references, etc., but I can't see any way of recovering this information, and I'd certainly prefer not to have to. Sorry to be a pain about this, but is there anywhere you can point me towards that would help with these issues? Best regards, --Plumbago 11:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is probably the best place. The long and the short of it is that we were facing a potential libel action for unsourced statements in the body of the article. I don't think I can be more specific than that. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thrashing the 3RR?

That was an interesting statement. Could you please elaborate on the reasons? (Radiant) 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can briefly (I'm working on a longer statement, but it isn't ready). I've outlined some of my thoughts at User:Mackensen/Thought experiment, but that was meant to deal with content arbitration, not the three-revert rule. Whether deliberately or by accident, the 3RR establishes a legal limit for revert-warring. While we all "know" that the argument that any user is "entitled" to three reverts a day is very much against the spirit of the rule, that remains the inevitable result of establishing an actual barrier after which you can be blocked. Any user can reasonably argue that the 3RR means that any block before the third or fourth revert is illegitimate, and they may well be right. There's also substantial disagreement over whether the fourth revert means you should be blocked, or whether you need to be warned after the third, or whether complex reverts are reverts at all or attempts at compromise. These questions are ultimately impossible to resolve, and this is, in my view, an unfruitful topic in the first place.
The three-revert rule does not favour "good" content over "bad" content save in cases of outright vandalism. I've covered this point in the linked passage above so I'll just recap briefly. m:Wrong Version aside, the 3RR can get an editor blocked for justifiably reverting POV-pushing or otherwise disruptive edits. Given the current stigma associated with a dirty block log, this can significantly harm a good user whose only crime was trying to better the encyclopaedia and who doubtlessly thought their actions were entirely appropriate. If there's an edit war breaking out the solution isn't to block the users responsible, that simply puts the problem in abeyance. If the article is suffering from disruption then protect the article and make them work it out on the talk page. Such discussions usually reveal who has a leg to stand on.
Finally, from a historical standpoint, the 3RR was meant to stop really obnoxious edit-warring. I think that it's clear from all the 3RR blocks handed out that it hasn't done that, and a cottage industry devoted to 3RR enforcement has sprung up instead, with all the associated problems that I've outlined above. I'd rather see content arbitration, or stronger community enforcement, perhaps via the Administrators Noticeboard, a mechanism which did not exist when the 3RR underwent its change in status.
In brief, that's my problem with the 3RR. I'll be trying to come up with something more coherent at a later date. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I chanced across this and found it interesting. The real thought experiment, I suppose, is "what would happen if this rule were not in place?" Someone with 3RR enforcement or edit-war-control experience should pick a few dozen 3RR blocks and try to figure out what would have happened? Would the revert-warring have gone on until someone had been blocked for disruption (albeit not mechanically under 3RR)? Would it have continued until someone got tired? Would disputes have escalated sooner than they did? Would the warring parties have resolved things? Imponderables I am sure but that is the real question. Newyorkbrad 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't imponderables exactly, because it used to be that way (back when dinosaurs roamed the wiki). Some edit wars did continue for days at a time, but an uninvolved sysop usually stepped in and protected when that happened. Back when quickpolls was tried out edit warring was grounds for a block. The problem with that mechanism was that it got engaged after the fact. 3RR at least has the benefit of engaging an existing problem, but I don't think it offers a solution. It's a ceasefire with no encouragement to approach the bargaining table. Furthermore, and I can prove this, it encourages sockpuppetry because the article is still editable. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting points. I tend to agree; I've had several cases where I made (or endorsed) a block for revert warring and was told that no, the block was improper because the 4th revert was not a full revert, or was done 26 hours after the first, etc. Plus we have all the bureaucracy at WP:AN/3RR; it would be more productive in most cases to be able to just point to a revert war (which is blatantly obvious from the page history anyway) and ask for admin reaction on that. Protection may be better in many cases, especially if a 3RR-accusation is made by the other party that was equally edit warring. That said, 3RR is such a meme that it'd be hard to dislodge. (Radiant) 17:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of bureaucracy, have you ever tried filing a 3RR report? Good grief. I think many of Sam Korn's arguments against Wikipedia:Community sanctions, or a least of writing them down and formalizing them, apply here too. Thatcher131 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's probably a textbook example of instruction creep (speaking of which, our guideline against that got revoked yesterday because somebody felt there wasn't enough discussion on the subject). (Radiant) 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, let me quote what I said two years ago: "Approve, with reservations. I'd rather it read: "Admins may block for obvious revert-warring." We ought to know it when we see it. Make 'em go to the talk page, period. Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)". At least I'm consistent...Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility in my mind has always been that a 3RR violation would result in the editor's being banned for 24 hours from editing that article (maybe even that article plus related articles), rather than banned from Wikipedia altogether. Pros: We keep the energies of the editor and potentially direct them to another topic where he or she can contribute without being disruptive; we don't risk disaffecting the editor also. Cons: Less deterrent effect; difficulties of monitoring and enforcement. (By the way, Mackensen, I'd be interested in a link to the discussion you quote from above.) Newyorkbrad 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of dinosaurs

Way back in 1991-2 I used to contribute to alt.religion.scientology using a Macintosh LC III at work and Macintosh Classic II at home. And I also remember a user with a quite distinctive name who was banned from rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 who is a respected editor here and deservedly so. Funny to see the same people popping up 15 years later. Thatcher131 17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 267: / Line 267: @@
 ::*Yes. It's probably a textbook example of instruction creep (speaking of which, our guideline against that got revoked yesterday because somebody felt there wasn't enough discussion on the subject). ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 In fact, let me quote what I said two years ago: "''Approve, with reservations. I'd rather it read: "Admins may block for obvious revert-warring." We ought to know it when we see it. Make 'em go to the talk page, period. Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)''". At least I'm consistent...[[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
+::Another possibility in my mind has always been that a 3RR violation would result in the editor's being banned for 24 hours from editing ''that article'' (maybe even that article plus related articles), rather than banned from Wikipedia altogether. Pros: We keep the energies of the editor and potentially direct them to another topic where he or she can contribute without being disruptive; we don't risk disaffecting the editor also. Cons: Less deterrent effect; difficulties of monitoring and enforcement. (By the way, Mackensen, I'd be interested in a link to the discussion you quote from above.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 == Speaking of dinosaurs ==