Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

• Per this: Good block, nuff said~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

1. Calamitybrook (talk · block log · block user) by SarekOfVulcan at 2011-10-06T15:01:01Z, expires infinity: [[WP:No personal attacks|Personal attacks]] or [[WP:Harassment|harassment]]: telling editors they had better hide their RL identity is beyond the pale
2. Ken keisel (talk · block log · block user) by SarekOfVulcan at 2011-10-06T19:03:29Z, expires infinity:
3. TVFan2012 (talk · block log · block user) by SarekOfVulcan at 2011-10-13T02:55:52Z, expires infinity:

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What gives? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for revdel in a case that doesn't come close to fulfilling any of the revdel criteria, so there's no further action needed on the report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you propose? Block? Page ban? Don't tell me... trout.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minnow, more like. After all, we are talking about a politician who gave an interview in front of a slaughterhouse during the run-up to Thanksgiving... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Et tu Sarek? :-o

– Lionel ^(talk) 04:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Did I make a disparaging remark? *looks innocent* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol– Lionel ^(talk) 04:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding the page protected template to the page? Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.

When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and how use of the Wiki libel page is not. I clearly stated he was crossing a line. Made no threat of any action, legal or otherwise.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have no problem mentioning that I received a block for a boarder line offense of this nature, lost privileges that will likely never return as well as the respect of many in the project over the issue that will take time to recover if ever. Learning from mistakes is something I take seriously.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed several thousand of these edits with this edit summary. I use the wording I do because I've run into people who think 10c is optional. The point is to convey via edit summary that this isn't optional, and to give links to appropriate policy and essays. If a person restores an image, I use User:Hammersoft/10c as a template to further bring home the point. The manner in which I conduct these edits has worked quite well. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello SarekOfVulcan! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Note that this was the first violation of the interaction ban for Volunteer Marek and the fourth one for Russavia. Are you sure that the length of the block should be the same? Colchicum (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count second to third, but I agree with your sentiment (see my post below). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment about your recent AE block. I think it is unfair to block an editor with a history of i-ban violations and multiple diffs showing recent violations for the same length that an editor with smaller history of i-ban violation, and only one place where the violation has occurred. Looking at the respective block logs, I see that one editor has two previous blocks (including from this summer), the other, only one (and that from over a year ago). I do not believe they deserve equal-length blocks. Also, I just made a comment at AE in which I suggest clarifying i-bans, and warnings instead of blocks, as I believe at least some parties involved may not be very clear on what an i-ban allows and what it doesn't. I'd ask you to consider taking this into account in revising the block lengths (downwards, of course). Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their last i-ban violations got them 3 and 4 day blocks -- therefore, 1 week is reasonable for both, imo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the difference in 4 and 3 days (which is 25%), there remain: 1) the number of current incidents/violations (reported in the AE thread), which at the very least are 2:1 2) the number of sanctioned violations, total (at my count, 2:1), and 3) the time of those sanctioned violations (this summer to over a year ago, not to mention that one editor has been asking a lot about the i-ban, and presumably knows a lot more about the boundaries than the other one). Isn't it considered a good practice to reset or at least lower the length of consecutive blocks if the violations are less frequent than a year (seeing as most things over a year on wiki are considered stale, ancient history)? All of this suggests to me that equal treatment is unfair. PS. At the very least, ignoring everything else, per your 4 to 3 comment, could you consider a 25% reduction in one block? PPS. There is also the preventative vs punitative aspect; I see no reason not to assume that VM wouldn't have learned from this incident, and will now avoid violating his i-ban. Thus the only thing we are preventing him from doing, is various constructive edits (for example, he is in the midst of a GA review, and a week long block will likely result in an auto-fail, as he is unable to address the reviewer's comments). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections against your close of the Russavia AE thread, but I just wanted to note that I might be considering yet more sanctions regarding other participants there. But I'm in a hurry now, more later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, I'll un-hat it. I just closed it because it had been an hour with no further comment. Thanks for the note. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike ANI, AE usually moves on a timescale of days, not hours... T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FPS, aren't you contradicting yourself? [confused]. PS. On the subject of confusion, can somebody confirm that my involvement in this discussion is acceptable (if not, as I stated earlier, I'll gladly self-rv my edits and remove myself from this issue). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you attacking the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samesexmarriage101 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. A committee reporting out a bill isn't terribly notable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just blew up that whole article.Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Define "blew up".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]