User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2012/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WatchlistBot

Hey, Jeff. The new version of WatchlistBot (the one you were testing) is back online. Your watchlist is still there. (The bot was down for a long time due to a bug in the XMPP library I was using as well as a shortage of spare time on my end.)

So... if you want to continue using it, it's back now. Just thought I'd let you know.  :) --Chris (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

erasing my user page

Please un edit my user page so that I can make the changes you've requested. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoun-Pinudjem (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I didn't erase your user page or request any changes, I just marked your userpage as a draft article with template {{userspace draft}} in this edit and then Helpful Pixie Bot came along 18 minutes later and dated that template in this subsequent edit. In order to be accepted as an article, it would need verifiable reliable sources and an assertion of notability.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am so frustrated trying to edit in wikipedia - I didn't actually create this profile but am attempting to edit it and now I am learning that a user is not supposed to write a page - there are other editors- a publisher and a vertebrate paleontologist both attempting to edit as well. I just really am not that good with computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoun-Pinudjem (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Who are the publisher and vertebrate paleontologist?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 9 February 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I need input.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

.onion links not dead

Hi Jeff, it looks like you are running a bot to find dead links. It marks .onion links as "dead", which is not correct; At least, if your bot isn't using TOR to check those links. 80.109.22.34 (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Links not verifiable from the world outside TOR should not be used as references here, as they fail WP:V.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense. Perhaps you might want to exclude the TOR page, though. 80.109.22.34 (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

plutonium edits

Hi jeff thanks for contacting me,im still finding my way here on wikipedia and apprciate the advice,I am aware of the serious nature of the work here,and have avoided deleting infomation as much as possible,however the complete lack of infomation on the occurence of man made plutonium in the section marked "occurence "struck me as something that needed imediate attention,I will in future use article talk pages and reference more, thanks once again sebastian barnes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian barnes (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RFA Postmortem: Questions

Additional question from 28bytes
7. What is the difference between sock puppetry and block evasion? Is it possible to be guilty of block evasion but innocent of sock puppetry?
A:A blocked user who edits while blocked using an IP Address is evading; only if they edit with a different account are they also socking.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
In my initial answer above, I was assuming good faith regarding the IP edits (that the IP edits themselves were not abusive). I'm sorry if that assumption caused me to answer incompletely.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The above only considered normal editing. If they edit abusively from an IP Address while their account is blocked, they are considered to be socking.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes to the second part.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it your idea that it's only abusive editing from IP addresses that's sockpupetting, whereas non-abusive editing wouldn't be? And in what sense can an IP be considered a sockpuppet in any case? Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I copied the above from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jeff G. I believe the answers are "yes" and "when editing abusively" per WP:SOCK; I'll try to get exact verbiage soon.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOCK says "Sock puppetry can take on several different forms: ... Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". I equate editing abusively with making problematic edits. Logging out to make non-problematic edits while blocked would be simple block evasion per WP:BE. Please let me know if I am reading these policies correctly, and if not how to read them better.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jeff. Block evasion and sock puppetry are quite different things, even though one often sees both going on at once. The essence of the sock puppetry policy is "don't pretend to be someone else to game the system." For example, using one account or IP to "agree" with another account or IP under your control in the same discussion to give the illusion that there are two separate people in the discussion, or using multiple accounts and/or IPs to "team up" against someone in an edit war. Both of those things can be done even if there is no block in place on any of the accounts, which means that block evasion isn't occurring although sock puppetry is. Conversely, if my account were blocked for edit-warring and I logged onto my declared alternate account (User:28bytes alt) to edit while my main account was blocked, I would be evading a block, but not participating in sock puppetry, since I'm very clear on both user pages that both accounts are controlled by the same person. In order words, I would not be creating the illusion that I'm someone else. Similarly, if I were to post as an IP and clearly identify myself as a not-logged-in-28bytes, there would be no sock puppetry involved, even if I were evading a block. I hope this helps. 28bytes (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
FWIW Jeff, I think you hit the nail on the head with your answer to the question. I came to the same conclusion myself. A user editing from an different IP would be block evasion. Do take the advice given, though. 68.96.45.234 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
After an e/c, I threw away my prepared text, as 28 has covered it well. I would just add now that if I block someone but leave autoblock unchecked, and an IP editor starts doing the exact same thing, that is block evasion but not sockpuppetry - all they did was log out and keep on editing. Similarly if they know that beans trick with the DSL modem or go to a different coffee-shop (and perhaps here I differ from 28bytes), if they are just doing the same things, then they are still just evading a block. If they use a different account to revisit a dispute, or present as a fresh face, yep, that's sockpuppetry. Also, as a side note on the post moertem, can you trim down that huge orange box? I have no idea if I am respecting your babbling boxes or not, and I'm not going to check. I do mean that in a helpful sense. Franamax (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. My babel boxes boil down to "use English"; I'm sorry if that was not clear enough, please help me to make it clearer.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You do know Jeff, that when someone leaves a compliment (like I did above) you should always thank them. Regards! 68.96.45.234 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just getting to that when RL got in the way, thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Franamax's point wasn't about the babel boxes themselves, but more the fact that you have a giant wall of instructions on your talk page, which can be very intimidating to new users attempting to communicate with you. In general it's best to keep talk page instructions simple and brief. 28bytes (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
That wall developed as an automated method of avoiding "I didn't know I was/wasn't supposed to do that" type statements and related delays and frustration. Do you think I should tear or pare down that wall? If pare, please be specific. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Different editors have different preferences, of course, but I prefer a simpler approach. For example, this is all that's usually on the top of my talk page, and it has served me well. If a header reaches a certain length, people simply won't read it, so all the instructions you've offered for them to communicate with you more effectively will be wasted. Take a look at the talk pages of some editors you respect, and see how they approach it. I think you'll find they use much less text. 28bytes (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, please expand here on "just wrong" as posted to my RfA and quoted below, as requested in my post of 02:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC) below. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RFA Postmortem: !votes

7. Oppose. Jeff has always seemed like a nice bloke when I've come across him, but he seems far too focused on attaining every hat under the sun, and he seems to see his various user rights (and adminship) as a status symbol. The umpteen million hats he wears across various wikis shows that he probably knows how to mash the buttons, but adminship on what I would call a "real" WMF wiki (ie one that hosts educational content rather than those that exist mostly for editors) is much more about judgement than button-mashing. Jeff, I'm not convinced that you have that judgement, at least not yet. I've declined an extraordinary number of your AIV reports in the past (and found your responses to concerns about your accuracy with Huggle and AIV reports to be less than encouraging), to trust you with the block button just yet. Your accuracy rate seems to have improved of late, to give credit where it's due, but I've also seen less of you at AIV. Finally, you seem to have a bit of a problem admitting when you're wrong (or at least dealing with good-faith disputes), as seems to be evidenced by your edits at Navy Mutual Aid Association recently—you tagged a long-standing article for speedy deletion under A7, which was declined by an admin because it had an obvious assertion of significance, so you slapped a load of maintenance tags on (without nay real effort to fix the problems yourself), then PROD it (and if the other editors' summary is anything to go by, you clearly didn't look for any coverage to help establish notability). After the PROD was declined, you sent it to AfD with a rationale that seemed to suggest it had had some arbitrary time limit in which to improve, and made this reply to another editor, completely overlooking the substance of their argument. That gives me great concern about how you would use the delete button, and is fairly typical of your haste, excessive zeal, and your determination that you are right and refusal to back down when you might not be. Sorry Jeff, I would like to support some day, but right now you're displaying too many traits that the admin corps could do without. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the answer to question 7 is just wrong, as a cursory glance of WP:SOCK would show. I expect RfA candidates to haveat least read the policies they would be enforcing if their RfA were successful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

I copied the above from my RFA. More later.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Re the A7 tag, I did not see "any credible claim of significance or importance" per WP:CSD#A7, and I couldn't find any verifiable reliable sources to backup anything in the article. What quantity of members qualifies as a "claim of significance or importance"?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
After declining my A7 tag, Horologium (talk · contribs) wrote in part "You could send it to AFD, if you wish" in these edits.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Re the maintenance templates, please look at this edit you highlighted closely. Note that all three tags were dated "April 2009". Note that my Edit Summary stated "restored {{Multiple issues". Those tags were added by Docu (talk · contribs) in this edit and Fabrictramp (talk · contribs) in the following edit (both in April 2009) , and indefblocked WP:SPA NMAA (talk · contribs) removed them in December 2011 in this third edit without fixing the problems they highlighted.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Re the PROD, yes I proposed deletion, with the concern "Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources." because I still could not find any verifiable references from reliable sources. That concern was as valid then as it is now.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Re "the other editors'[sic] summary", contrary to your unfounded accusation that I "clearly didn't look for any coverage to help establish notability", I tried to find verifiable references from reliable sources, but all the verifiable ones were from the NMAA or the United States Navy.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Re the AfD, my nomination was "This article has had three years in which to improve, and it still has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD." with sig and wikilinks. The three years were since the tagging in April 2009. Has the Wikipedia biography controversy taught us nothing? Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a guideline. If there were reliable sources to find, don't you think at least one of the eight people who edited the AfD (your name conspicuously absent from the list) would have found them and put them in the article or the AfD in the nine days since I filed the AfD? The AfD is still open, and the article still has no verifiable reliable sources.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Re my reply, WP:NOBLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are listed (by other acronyms) on page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The post I was replying to did nothing to legitimately advance our knowledge of reliable sources for this article. To quote from that page, those are "arguments based from side issues that are not relevant to the issue of whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted".   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Re question 7, please expand on "just wrong" in section RFA Postmortem: Questions, above. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 2

Since I started concentrating my continuity-based editing on this page (shortly before my edit above at 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)), the article has gotten some reliable sources and survived AfD. I'm sorry I didn't notice that sooner.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Novice needs biography editing assistance

Hello Harry--Last month I made my first stab at a Wikipedia biography entry, and it was a chore. Then a couple of weeks later an editor named Khazar, now no longer on Wiki, completely deleted my entry. This entry has become a ground for skeptics trying to defame a well-known psychic detective named Noreen Renier (entry title). Consequently, I entered a supportive entry. Khazar in his editing summary stated "it's going to have to have the opinions of both sides fairly presented--skeptics and believers alike". However, he then deleted my entire article, removing the only "believers" contribution in the article. I attempted to revert it, but not knowing exactly how to do it, I ended up with only my contribution in the article. So I undid that and decided I needed to contact someone who knows what they are doing with entries. Please let me know if you have the time to help me out. Much appreciated, WashTeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashTeh (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain that in the section you started at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Editor_assistance_needed_for_Noreen_Renier_entry and participate in the ensuing discussion there. Also, I'm not Harry. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

First and foremost which should be said to just about every editor, thank you for your work. At this time, your RfA was unsuccessful and has been closed. I'm sure several editors will be point below with recommendations on how to improve for your next RfA, but I would recommend to you that you gain a better understanding of administrative policy and it's a good idea to watch RfA and review previous RfAs before running. I would like to highlight HJ Mitchell's comments as they are what will best set you on your way to your next running, as most of the comments seem to come from there. Overall though, I wish you the best of luck on your wikijourney and feel free to talk to me if you ever would like an opinion on running for RfA (or one of the many others who are willing to). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have torpedoed your RfA like that. I know failing an RfA isn't very pleasant, I've been there myself. Keep your chin up and be proud and be proud of the good work you've done here. That there's room for improvement is nothing to be ashamed of. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but your comments above are inconsistent with your comments below (as copied from my RfA). Please clarify.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I would have liked to have more time to reply and explain using a fully-capable client. Much of what I would have liked to add is below, and I would welcome your input on it.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have posted tallback notices on both of your user talk pages.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone please help me to understand how my answer to question 7 could be construed as inconsistent with WP:SOCK, and how to construct a better answer? Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I'm sorry I didn't get into the RFA in time to !vote - I would have at least provided moral support as I think you are a strong wikipedian. I won't go so far as to construct a better answer for you, but may I suggest that you consider WP:SOCK from the perspective of a non-blocked user (or series of accounts). I can't speak for those who said you answered it incorrectly, but I *suspect* that they may have had concerns with your answer only focusing on what happens when a blocked user is involved. The more troublesome sock puppetry issues that we have to deal with are with users who have never been blocked but use multiple accounts or IPs to try to lend a stonger voice to their POV.  7  04:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree/disagree/TLDR?  7  23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, sorry for the delay, I'll try to add it to the tree.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added it to the tree below, what do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic editor decision tree

Assume we have a new editor with one edit. Start here if you are waiting for an edit.

  • If the editor is banned but not blocked at the time of the edit (probably not after just one edit)
    • Revert or modify, as appropriate.
    • If the ban was by ArbCom
      • Submit to WP:AE or block for the duration of the ban (depending on capabilities).
      • Ensure that the block is logged on the appropriate ArbCom page.
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • If the ban was by the community
      • Submit to WP:ANI or block for the duration of the ban (depending on capabilities).
      • Ensure that the block is logged on the appropriate community page.
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
  • If the edit appears to give the false impression of more support to some opinion or POV than is warranted (such as by voting in a similar manner in a straw poll, !voting the same way in a discussion, or reverting the same edit: with multiple accounts belonging to the same person; or with two or more accounts and one or more IP Addresses)
    • Refer to WP:SPI or block (depending on capabilities).
    • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
  • If the edit appears to give the false impression of more support to some opinion or POV than is warranted (such as by voting in a similar manner in a straw poll, !voting the same way in a discussion, or reverting the same edit: with one account and one or more IP Addresses; or with two or more IP Addresses)
    • Refer to a CheckUser or WP:FUNC in private if the link is not yet public, refer to WP:ANI if the link is already public, or block (depending on capabilities) - WP:SPI can't handle such cases in public due to privacy issues.
    • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
  • If the edit is good
    • If the edit violates an editing restriction
      • If the editing restriction was by ArbCom
        • Submit to WP:AE or take the action specified by the restriction (depending on capabilities).
        • Ensure that any block placed is logged on the appropriate ArbCom page.
        • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
      • If the editing restriction was by the community
        • Submit to WP:ANI or take the action specified by the restriction (depending on capabilities).
        • Ensure that any block placed is logged on the appropriate community page.
        • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
  • If the edit is not good
    • If the editor is banned and blocked at the time of the edit and the edit is to the editor's user talk page without addressing the ban
      • Revert or modify, as appropriate.
      • Revoke talk page access.
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • If the editor is blocked but not banned at the time of the edit and the edit is to the editor's user talk page without addressing the block
      • Revert or modify, as appropriate.
      • Revoke talk page access.
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • If the editor is blocked but not banned at the time of the edit and the edit is to the editor's user talk page without addressing the block and talk page access is not revoked and the editor uses an alternative account permitted by policy or an IP Address
      • Revert or modify, as appropriate.
      • Revoke talk page access.
      • Block the alternative account or IP Address for block evasion with talk page access revoked.
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • If the editor is blocked but not banned at the time of the edit and the edit is to the editor's user talk page without addressing the block and talk page access is already revoked and the editor uses an alternative account permitted by policy or an IP Address
      • Revert or modify, as appropriate.
      • Block the alternative account or IP Address for block evasion with talk page access revoked.
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • If the editor is blocked but not banned at the time of the edit and the edit is to anything other than the editor's user talk page without addressing the block and talk page access is already revoked and the editor uses an alternative account permitted by policy or an IP Address
      • Revert or modify, as appropriate.
      • Block the alternative account or IP Address for block evasion with talk page access revoked.
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • Revert or modify, as appropriate.
    • Discuss with the editor or warn the editor at level 1.
    • If subsequent edits are good
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • If subsequent edits are not good and most recent warning is level 4 or the user's block or ban recently expired
      • Submit to WP:AIV or block (depending on capabilities)
      • If subsequent edits are not good
        • Escalate block time.
        • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
      • If subsequent edits in a similar manner and/or from a similar IP or account name while blocked are not good
        • Refer to WP:SPI or block (depending on capabilities).
        • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • If subsequent edits are not good and most recent warning is still recent but less than level 4
      • Warn with the next higher-numbered warning.
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.
    • If subsequent edits are not good and most recent warning is not still recent
      • Warn with a level 2 warning.
      • Go back to the top and wait for another edit.

Comments?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jeff G.. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—apologies for the delay. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello, Jeff G.. You have a reply to your note at User_talk:Begoon's talk page. Begoon talk 01:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff_G./Archives/2012/February&oldid=1079472986"