WikiIndex talk:Community portal/Archive 4

For talk amongst / to admins, go here– Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki.

for talk amongst or to sysops / admins and bureaucrats,
please go to: category talk: Active administrators of this wiki

---

WikiIndex talk: Community portal archives of older talk pages: 1 (2006), 2 (2007–13), 3 (2014–16), 4 (2017)

Happy New Year!

WikiIndex wishlist What would you like to see happen here in 2017? How would you like to see the site change and grow? Koavf (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2016 (PST)

Semantic MediaWiki

Do folks have any ideas on how to show off our Semantic MediaWiki? ~~ MarkDilley

I did not know that we are here to show of. --Manorainjan 07:53, 25 January 2017 (PST)

Showing off What do you have in mind, Mark? From what I've seen, the use of SMW is pretty "under-the-hood" rather than on display as such... Do you want to have tools to query our site like at Wikidata? Koavf (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2017 (PST)

Manorainjan

It's time to stop this once and for all. Said user has a track record of pestering and at times even insulting other users, in fact an admin left for a while because of him. It seems to me like Manor acts as though he's some sort of "mini-admin" most of the time, and frankly I think he needs to be blocked. What do you guys think? --This is MY book, and I'm gonna READ IT!!! 09:44, 25 January 2017 (PST)

Guidelines I have always argued that a large part of the problem is that we don't have many guidelines. I don't like rules generally but if we don't have any kind of documentation to appeal to, someone can always say, "But I didn't know I couldn't do this". (Even if the infraction is pretty obvious social etiquette.) I think that we should be more explicit about what is expected and then when it's transgressed, it's easier to point out how and why there would be some consequence. Koavf (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2017 (PST)

I am a known wiki person, but I will not reveal my name to avoid problems with the aforementioned user. I have had several problems with him and came to the conclusion that he is a stupid provocateur. He should be blocked from the whole internet. --46.166.148.154 10:33, 26 January 2017 (PST)

Says someone who is [This IP is globally blocked over all WikiMedia-Projects: globally blocked over all WikiMedia-projects ;-) --Manorainjan 12:06, 26 January 2017 (PST)

You know that I am using open proxies (which is blocked on Wikimedia for obvious reasons) to avoid you to come and stalk me under my house. ;)

Manorainjan - do you really think it is appropriate to accuse people of behaving like Nazis - as you did in your edit summary of this edit - http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex_talk:Community_portal&oldid=194882. Frankly, that is truly despicable behaviour, and you, as a German should know better.

As to lack of 'policy' here on WikiIndex - I think this is a red herring. Let us be very clear here. Manor has had multiple, repeated WARNINGS over his conduct and behaviour. When Manor refuses to comply with very specific requests from not only long-term and highly valued editors - and then has the utter arrogance to refuse when told buy Admins and Crats - that, to me, and I would guess the whole of the wikisphere is ABSOLUTE grounds for banning. The fact that he was so belligerently arrogant to effectively force a Crat to step away from WikiIndex - that just shows his fundamental character! And that type of character is NOT helpful in building a wiki community. And since I took my lengthy sabbatical, I have discovered MANY subsequent editors to ask that Manor be blocked for his repeated abusive behaviour.

Quite frankly, if Manor is allowed to continue here on WikiIndex, then WikiIndex will eventually self-destruct. I am again frankly shocked over the very real STAGNATION which WikiIndex has succumbed to since Manors arrival. Sure, there are a few dedicated editors here who try to do their bit - but are overwhelmed by constant fire-fighting caused by Manor. But I have looked at many of arguably the most important entries here on WikiIndex - and I was shocked to find they had NOT been updated for nigh-on THREE YEARS!

In light of the above - and particularly the blatant racist comment by Manor - I will be blocking Manor for a period of 7 days. Manor needs to use these 7 days to honestly consider if he wishes to comply with the views and requests of the remainder of the WikiIndex community. If Manor tries to bypass his 7 day block - I will DOUBLE the duration of his block - and will concurrently double his block for each and every attempt he may use to bypass the block.

To the rest of the WikiIndex community, and especially MarkDilley - I expect you to support my action to block Manor for a short period of time. It would be nice if we put the interests of WikiIndex first, rather than letting someone stay who not only has destroyed the friendly community we once had here, but who has also failed to grasp the fundamental ethos of WikiIndex.

Comments, please.  :-) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 09:53, 27 January 2017 (PST)

 Support ~~ MarkDilley

 Support I'll be honest, I'm shocked Manor was unblocked the first time Hoof tried to ban him. He is truly pugnacious, as evidenced by the aforementioned racist comment and his post on my talk page. --This is MY book, and I'm gonna READ IT!!! 15:34, 27 January 2017 (PST)

 Support Obviously. And I will definitely support any further action you take on this. Maybe I'm too naive or too much of a nice guy but I've experienced this on another wiki as well where someone makes what are definitely constructive and useful edits (and so is not solely a troll or vandal) but additionally is so consistently rude and off-putting that he has to go. Simply put, wikis are built around communities and if we have to lose one prolific and generally knowledgeable user because he pushes away everyone else through a combination of logical fallacies, abrasiveness, and martyrdom syndrome, then it's clear which one is preferable. I honestly don't want to lose him as an editor nor did I want to lose the valuable contributions of the other person at the other wiki I mentioned but for the well-being of the community even at the risk of a small set-back in the creation of content, it has to happen. I have been too rosy-eyed in the past and I still am--I sincerely hope that Manorainjan just cools off and looks at this objectively to see that his behavior is (willfully) off-putting and that others are not ganging up on him. Too many olive branches and too much pleading--please grow up and just be a decent person. Koavf (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2017 (PST)

 Support --TheTVFan (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2017 (PST)

 Strong support I've had issues with this user while I was editing as an IP. I'll point to just a few out of a whole string of examples. The user refused to allow me to change the Wiki.Wiki article to "inactive" after no wiki requests had been answered for over three months, and, even after I explained my reasoning, did the same thing again. In addition, he also refused to let me blank and request deletion of my own static IP talk page not once, not twice, but three times. He also reverted my edits to the WikiBridge article that classified the wiki "dead" - my reason being that despite technically still existing, a message was left on the Main page saying "This wiki no longer exists" and the supposed replacement site archived in the page history also has been closed. I could probably find more examples, but I think I've made my point. Users like this should not be allowed to contribute to any community-based environment, especially when they don't explain half of their edit reverts! I do agree though that more policy documentation is needed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:41, 2 February 2017 (PST)

Give him a warning and see if that suffices. If not, revisit the issue later. He might not play well with others, but he puts in a lot of work on the project. With regard to racist remarks that may or may not have been made, bear in mind that with the election of Donald Trump, the era of political correctness is over. Leucosticte (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2017 (PST)

Comment According to the users above, he has already had multiple warnings and temporary blocks, yet has refused to listen. Also, please keep politics out of community discussions. Many people, myself included, will disagree with your point of view. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:19, 3 February 2017 (PST)

Was he given an official warning, or was it just a bunch of people coming up to him at various times and saying, "I find your behavior objectionable; cut that out" which led to him saying, "Who are YOU to tell me what to do" or "I did nothing wrong" or whatever? I don't recall there being a situation where MarkDilley told him, "Hey, knock it off or I'm gonna block you." Had that happened a long time ago, maybe Sean wouldn't have gone on his hiatus.

Anyway, if someone got offended by a racist remark, that means politics already got injected into the discussion, because racism is very political (what with all the white nationalist movements coming out of the shadows these days). I'm not saying we have any people like that around here, but entryist SJWs have been known to go around the Internet trying to get codes of conduct enacted (formally or informally) banning racist remarks, so that they can censor their opponents. To the extent this is an opinion poll of the users, I'm registering my dissent with norms of political correctness.

Having said that, if someone called me a honky, I'd be offended, but no more than if he called me an idiot or some other insult. Leucosticte (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2017 (PST)

It was an official warning - from a crat, no less - and he was blocked after refusing to listen and then he socked over said block. --This is MY book, and I'm gonna READ IT!!! 08:35, 3 February 2017 (PST)

Official warnings Yes, I have warned him on multiple instances in the time that I have been an admin/bureaucrat/staff member. There isn't a process for "official" warnings but it's also clear that if you're harassing and annoying multiple users over the course of years and driving them away from the project, then something has to give: either you get blocked or everyone else concedes defeat and makes this your personal playground. Not having many official rules is nice in a way but it also ends up being a problem at times. Lacking that, common sense is a decent rule of thumb (which is also imperfect). We also don't have a particular rule about offensive speech and I generally think that's a good thing as well but there is also speech that serves no purpose other than to irritate or harass and the community stands nothing to gain by having someone be provocative without repercussions. Koavf (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2017 (PST)

I consider any warning from a sysop to be an official warning. Leucosticte (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2017 (PST)

Comment I do note that the user being discussed is currently blocked, which I don't think is very fair. Assuming that I am not mistaken, I believe what is being discussed here is an indefinite block or even a permanent ban from WikiIndex. In either case, the user in question should be allowed to defend themselves or otherwise comment before the discussion is closed. If the user makes disruptive comments to the discussion, then they should be blocked. But not before they'd had a chance to defend their actions. Just my personal opinion, but I think that it is important to consider. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 09:04, 3 February 2017 (PST)

As other users stated, he has been warned multiple times. When his block expires, he will be able to explain and defend his actions. --TheTVFan (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2017 (PST)

Ban You are mistaken, Jamie--he is blocked for seven days (expiring soon) and I am certainly willing to let him contribute if all he wants to do is contribute. Someone who is simply trolling will be blocked indefinitely, no problem. Someone who has many demonstrably constructive edits but who is also abrasive is a lot trickier and that's why I hope that he can come back and play nice. He's had plenty of opportunities to defend himself which mainly amount to tu quoque fallacies and mind-games ("yeah but you did [x]" or "how can you prove that I intended [y]"). It's inarguable that his behavior is inappropriate and lacking a clear policy, the repeated warnings over the course of years should be sufficient. I sincerely hope that it's onwards and upwards once his block expires if he chooses to return. Koavf (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2017 (PST)

Request for Comments

User:HAL-9000 This user emailed me personally asking for an unblock. I explained in email and via his talk that I will be holding him to extra scrutiny and may have to consult IP logs due to the nature of prior disruption. His unblock was adjusted from "indefinite" to a few days from now to solicit community feedback. I'm a believer in second chances and I remember him being a productive member of the community. Thoughts? Koavf (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2017 (PST)

As I saw from his profile that he made some productive edits,  Support, but the community should keep in mind that I didn't know him before, so I'm not aware of his previous actions. TheTVFan (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2017 (PST)

Also, I received a private e-mail from him asking to remove his personal information on Community Portal. For the admin team: I have removed it, please revert my edit if you think it's not okay. I have unblocked him assuming good faith, but will be monitoring his edits. --TheTVFan (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2017 (PST)

Lift infinite blocks for IP-spammers?

I think that IP-spammers should not be blocked for infinite, because they use proxies or dynamic IPs. I think a 1-year block is enough. Comment with your ideas below :-) --TheTVFan (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2017 (PST)

•  Support Indefinitely blocking IP's is never a good thing except in the most serious circumstances, and it is not allowed on WMF unless deemed absolutely necessary (and any indefinitely blocked IP's are subject to review). Regardless of the reason, I'd say 365 days should be the maximum block for any IP address. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 09:15, 5 February 2017 (PST)
•  Support A long block on an IP is frequently unnecessary as someone is likely to just move on after [x] days/weeks. There are about 700 IPs which are indefinitely blocked and I'm removing them for the ones that are a decade old--very unlikely they will cause any problems. And if they do, we have several active admins here. Koavf (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2017 (PST)
•  Support I agree about the one-year maximum. Leucosticte (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2017 (PST)

Category:Inactive

The Inactive category is deprecated and has been replaced by Dormant. Using the "inactive" entry returns an error message saying that it's not in the list of possible values, even before I deleted it from the wiki status comparison table just now. I would propose removing all entries from the category and updating them with a different status, but the issue is that there are 777 pages in the category. This would take forever to orphan. Advice? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 09:51, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Those kind of of edits should be done by a bot. --Manorainjan 10:06, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Botwork I am doing them with AWB and I have tagged my account as a bot at the moment. There is also Category:Pages that use Template:Inactive from Template:Inactive which should be emptied and all instances of Template:Inactive should be converted to Template:Wiki with status=Dormant but in the meantime, this will fix all of the error thrown up by the invalid status. Thanks, Jamie. Koavf (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Deprecation It looks like User:MarkDilley had some reservations about deprecating the template. Mark, if you're viewing this, can you explain more? Koavf (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2017 (PST)

It's true that the Inactive category can be considered deprecated, but there wasn't an official community consensus about it. I also agree that the edits should be done with a bot, to avoid obstructing RecentChanges. --TheTVFan (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Bot flag I amended my user rights so that it would pass through the bot filter but it evidently didn't work--not sure why. Sorry for clogging up the Recent Changes but it's a done deal now. Koavf (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Not a problem. I wanted to remove "Inactive" status from WikiStatus template, as we don't use it anymore, but I see it was alredy done. Good work. :-)--TheTVFan (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2017 (PST)

The change is incomplete. It is not sufficient, to change the status. One has to rework the template intro: "Inactive|" must be replaced by "Wiki/n|", 3 SPACE removed, may be more. --Manorainjan 12:15, 6 February 2017 (PST)

 Support. This should be done, manually or with a bot. --TheTVFan (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Change Manorainjan, which template needs to be changed...? Koavf (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2017 (PST)

The change towards inactive caused the logos to be disconnected from the wiki page. Therefore we got loads of orphaned logos. We would see their destination only after this rework. Some logos got deleted in the meantime, because someone thought they are not needed. --Manorainjan 12:20, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Logos Can you give an example of one? I can undelete or re-add as necessary. Koavf (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Sorry, I can't, because HAL has flooded RC with vandal-edits. --Manorainjan 12:35, 6 February 2017 (PST)

He was just blocked. Thank you for warning us about this user. --TheTVFan (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2017 (PST)

User HAL-9000: what about his new edit?

I blocked him because of this vandalism edit. I think we need a strong community support to unblock him. Please reply with  Support or  Oppose.--TheTVFan (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2017 (PST)

 Oppose: seems to be a blanking vandal --TheTVFan (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Blanking Page blanking can be unintentional. You've allowed the user the ability to edit his talk page so he can explain himself there. Not sure if you're seeing this, HAL but what happened here? Koavf (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2017 (PST)

I have intentionally done it, to have a response from him. However, I have temporarily unblocked his account to let him answer here. --TheTVFan (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2017 (PST)

I have undone almost all his vandalism. Please see if I forgot some pages, and rollback them. Best, --TheTVFan (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2017 (PST)

 Weak oppose As this does seem to be a vandalism-only account, I would typically oppose an unblock. However, one thing I would like to mention is the possibility of a malicious bot. The page blankings seem to be happening all at once, so I would wonder if either the user is running a bot and is not performing the actions themselves, or, at the worst, their account has been compromised by malicious software. I would recommend a CheckUser to check for spambot IP's before going any further. Depending on the CU results, my opinion may change later. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:37, 6 February 2017 (PST)

This was to be expected. I did not say anything, because actually everybody had been warned: dif. The claim, that the account had been hacked is old ... who believes such claims? --Manorainjan 14:19, 6 February 2017 (PST)

I don't rule anything out until there is evidence either confirming it or discrediting it. Therefore, I will not identify the claim of a hacked account as false unless CU data or other sufficient evidence prove it to be so (in summary: I believe everything in situations like this until evidence discredits options). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 6 February 2017 (PST)

 Support Give the benefit of the doubt; if he's a vandal, he'll mess up again soon enough, and you can reblock him. Leucosticte (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Check User If the actual person running the account and doing constructive things wants a new account, he can request one. In the meantime, there are long blocks put on IPs associated with this account and an indefinite one for this user. I generally don't like (implicitly) publishing IPs but the user was warned that this would be possible and his IPs have been published here before, so c'est la vie. If his machines are compromised, then he really needs to scrub his hard drives. Koavf (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2017 (PST)