Wikipedia

User:Senra/sandbox

< User:Senra

Robust campaign edit

I have not yet commented anywhere on the Gibraltar DYK debate but I have watched from the sidelines. Prioryman (talk · contribs) has posted nearly 40,000 bytes to the "Wikipedia talk" namespace between 12 and 14 February 2013; most postings are robustly defending Gibraltar DYK related topics. If Prioryman's defence is as altruistic as it appears, it is to be heartily applauded for its eloquence and masterly assumption of good faith on all other responding parties. As I am aware of the WMUK background to this debate, could Prioryman publicly assure us that he/she is not receiving any form of direct or indirect recompense, financial or otherwise, for this energetic championship of Gibraltar DYK.

Brownie Mary GAN edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

needs work as noted

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Not entirely concise; some grammar; inconsistently presented facts (e.g. Waitress/SS)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Words to watch
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    AGF on sources (though have checked a few)
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Sources all look reliable; One dead link
    C. No original research:
    AGF on WP:OR but looks OK
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Mainly covers her later life
    B. Focused:
    Fairly focused
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Concern over controversial and last sentence
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No instability noted during the review
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Only one image which is correctly licensed
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Weak but acceptable relevance
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Back to the original questions edit

Would future posters stick to answering (or dismissing) each question please instead of posting sycophantic defences or even attacking me. I'm thick skinned enough to weather such attacks but in my own defence, this was a carefully crafted post that was intended for WP:ANI. I sought and received advice from an (unnamed) admin at IRC who recommended I post it here --Senra (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Lost faith in administrators edit

If I lost my cool at another editor I would be sanctioned. Indeed. I fear that, as a result of this post, I will be watched more carefully in future. Nevertheless, I cannot help but comment that some privileged souls get to shout and swear, remain unrepentant and even have their characteristic famous uncivil outburst struck from the record and then get to arrogantly shrug it off. Another series of strongly uncivil attacks (here and here) are ignored without sanction because the attacker self-reverted acknowledge attack and grudgingly apologised citing provocation.

This post concentrates on administrator behaviour. It specifically ignores ALL potential mitigating circumstances

I have four questions arising from the above

  1. Why are the civility and no personal attacks policies being not used aggressively on administrators?
  2. Do we as a community trust administrators who react in such ways to always use their tools fairly?
  3. How is revision deletion permissible in this case?
  4. Are either of the above administrators open to recall? If not, why not?

--Senra (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible SPA AfD spree edit

IronKnuckle (talk · contribs) has been taken to ANI and is under SPI investigation after creating fifteen AfD nominations ...

Some of the above may be valid AfD candidates.

--Senra (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Block views requested edit

Give this couple the benefit of the doubt. There are two of us in our household. We have one shared desktop computer configured with our own private accounts. We have one laptop each, again with our own accounts though we tend not to share these two computers. We have one iPhone each and a shared iPad. The iPad belongs to my partner and is thus set up with my partners accounts. When we snuggle on the sofa, we share access to the iPad. All our devices access the internet via one NAT enabled router with WiFi and wired connections. All our devices thus share the one public IP address. In general we use Google Chrome on all our machines although of course the default Safari browser on iOS devices cannot be changed. We each have our own Google-id thus enabling us to sync our personal data, such as Wikipedia log-in details, across all. It is not convenient to log out of Google then log in again on the iPad. As it happens, my partner does not edit Wikipedia. Also as it happens, if we did both edit Wikipedia it would be in different content spaces. --Senra (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Three strikes proposal edit

  • No blocking policy block[3] can be lifted under any circumstance by any person under any policy or guideline[4] unless said block is successfully challenged[5]
  • Three successful challenges against a given admin result in that admin voluntarily[6] losing the ability to block
  • Lost blocking ability can only be regained following discussion-based consensus.
Notes
  1. Whilst not ideal, this version of the Blocking policy under the clean start section supports users who wish to clean their block log of inappropriate blocks. The phrase Blocks placed in error and lifted early should not be noted at all was first added to clean start (then called name change) section of the blocking policy by Jossi (talk · contribs) at 19:43, 27 December 2007 following discussions and talk-page notification
  2. Under Common rationale for blocks section, administrators are reminded that "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review". A version of these two sentences were first added by Stephen Bain (talk · contribs) at 17:32, 28 April 2007
  3. On disruption, this version of the blocking policy says " A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia". The phrase Civil, collegial atmosphere was added by Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) at 15:24, 3 September 2006

--Senra (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ to help prevent the endless discussion on defining an exceptions policy
  2. ^ by anyone before the natural expiry of the block
  3. ^ placed after enactment of this proposal to avoid prior blocks coming under this proposal
  4. ^ including but not limited to the Blocking policy
  5. ^ a successful challenge is any on-wiki discussion-based consensus resulting in the block being lifted before its expiry
  6. ^ or technically if possible

comment: #1 is the current policy is it not? Every current block is according to the blocking policy? Therefore the statement is not saying anything new. #2 is also according to current policy. There is an unblock appeals process. A challenge is no different to an appeal except this proposal defines a challenge as a discussion-based consensus. My intention, I guess poorly stated, is that more than just the blocker and blockee should take part in the discussion to arrive at a consensus. #3 is also in the current policy. Currently a single editor can successfully challenge a block which is unblocked by the blocker. That will never happen under this proposal. A blocking administrator is unlikely to overturn one of their own blocks for fear of #4. Therefore, further discussion (i.e. a successful discussion-based consensus) would be needed or the block sticks. #3 would also prevent hair-trigger unblocks that occur without discussion. #4 is new. I object to #4 being dismissed by comparing it to baseball or asking why three and not two or five. We currently have 3RR which is just three-strikes under a different name. Perhaps I should have called this the 3BB proposal? #4 is an attempt to provide a disincentive to hair-trigger blocks. #5 speaks for itself. I was thinking #4 had the administrators rattled because of their attempts at stifling discussion on this topic by diverting it away from this page. My thinking did not assume good faith. These were reasonable suggestions advising a method of gaining wider community input. However, I am perfectly happy to document here the (mostly) clear administrator view.


Responses:

@Fluffernutter: No need for further balance as this proposal is an attempt to balance the system. From an overall community perspective, administration is already imbalanced compared to non administrators. Administrators have tools. Non administrators do not. Please explain your "potential wikilawyering and internal contradiction inherent this proposal". @Dennis Brown: "... exceeds the power of the community ..."? This is pure arrogance. Administration is a privilege awarded by the community which should be open to berecalled by the community. Relying on Arbcom to desysop an administrator is "bureaucratic thinking". @SPhilbrick: Any system can be gamed as our current system often is. Three seems realistic to me. In the UK legal system, a first offence for many crimes carries a lesser penalty than subsequent offences by the same person. We should give leave for mistakes. They do happen. One-strike-and-you-are-out would seem overly harsh (to borrow a word from 'Fluffernutter'). @ Gimmetoo:Would any administrator indef anyone if this proposal was accepted? @SarekOfVulcan: No reasoned comment. @NE Ent:Quick unblocks, or at least unblocks without prior discussion-based consensus, are part of the issue. These generally lead to even more discussion. Whilst I assume good faith on the unblocker in such cases a quick unblock denies the blockee the benefit of a recorded discussion about the block. @Stephan Schulz: accepted. 3 in 5 is different to 3 in 5,000. Agreed. Consistent enforcement is more important. It is a shame that blocks are not consistently applied. @Monty845: Have you considered that this proposal would change blocking behaviour in some key respects? I would anticipate fewer if any indef blocks and administrators taking more care when considering blocks of long term editors

Blocking edit

Civil, collegial atmosphere added by Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) at 15:24, 3 September 2006

Arb test case edit

Does the {{arbreq}} template work in user-space?

Test case edit

Initiated by Senra (talk) at 23:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1
  • Link 2

Statement by {Party 1} edit

Statement by {Party 2} edit

Statement by {Party 3} edit

Clerk notes edit

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Test case: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> edit

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)


Yups. Yes it does.

--Senra (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixing URLs edit

Fixing bare URLs arising out of this discussion.

  1. [1] Farmer, Rebecca (8 October 2005). "Governor Signs Safe Cosmetics Bill:New Law Heightens Scrutiny of Industry Safety". Breast Cancer Fund. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. [2] "Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH/rBST)". Breast Cancer Fund. 2013.
  3. [3] "rBGH & Breast Cancer". Think Before You Pink. Breast Cancer Action. 2013.
  4. [4] "History & Accomplishments". Breast Cancer Action. 2013.
  5. [5] Beck, Melinda (4 September 2012). "Can There Be Too Much Breast-Cancer Treatment?". The Wall Street Journal. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Re-awakening of an old dispute? edit

To WhatamIdoing: kindly avoid sarcastic personal remarks and battleground prose which is clearly evidenced in your above response, within the rest of this page and in all of this pages archives. WP:PRESERVE incontrovertibly does not apply in this particular case; I have provided verifiable evidence by (as it happens properly formatted) sources and I have not removed any information. On the contrary, I have have been bold and changed only one adjective in the article only after discussing the matter on the talk page. To take your two sources:
To Charles35: to be perfectly honest, I do not agree that the pink ribbon is a universal symbol and it is certainly not the universal symbol. The idea that it might be a or the universal symbol to a global Wikipedia readership conflicts withthe evidence already presented. In addition, I see it as a precedent that the term international symbol has been in the pink ribbon article since 14:27, 22 November 2006; thus pre-dating this article. However, thank you for attempting to mediate here
--Senra (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Senra edit

Complicated. The bait (Q20-4B and RHT-47A-34Q) by O'Dea (talk · contribs) lured a now widely admonished block from Hex (talk · contribs). O'Dea was swift to complain and the block was lifted by MaxSem (talk · contribs) after 1 hour 44 minutes. The alleged bad-block debate gained rapid traction at WP:AN which was very eloquently expanded by O'Dea 6 hours 24 minutes after the block. Calls for Hex to provide a reasonable explanation, initially unheeded, bring us here. My own analysis: Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs) is right to bring Hex's clear initial failure to account for his actions to Arbcom. As an administrator, Hex has a duty to discuss whenever and wherever debate is occuring—not just on his talk page one-to-one. Hex should be unequivocally admonished but should not be desysopped. In addition, the (mainly) administrator pile-on at WP:AN following the block reversal shows generally poor admin-ship and a widespread failure to examine all the facts. O'Dea's initial baiting should not go without comment --Senra (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Independent edit

You quote from an opinion piece written by a tabloid journalist writing freelance for The Independent—Wynne-Jones, Ros (22 July 2011). "Red-top redemption: Why tabloid journalism matters". The Independent. London. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) When Wynne-Jones says "Can we really complain now that we are held in lower esteem even than MPs?" (my emphasis) he is likely using the pronoun to refer to himself and other similar journalists from The Mirror. I do not read the piece as directly declaring The Independent as a tabloid newspaper. Does it matter if it is? There are other confirming sources such as her GRO reference via Ancestry.com which suggest 1981 is correct. In this particular case, if it was me, I would state her birth year as X sourced to x with a reference note giving year as Y etc sourced to y etc. Otherwise other well-meaning editors will only change it again.

Scratch-pad edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Senra/sandbox&oldid=1023707862"