Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive576: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 541:
::1) That's the second reference to OTRS, again without any clues to how one can verify one's identity "using OTRS". As far as I can make out, OTRS is a ticketing system for handling requests; there's no reference to an identity verification system that I can see. Maybe I'm not looking closely enough.[[User:Steveb|Steveb]] ([[User talk:Steveb|talk]]) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
::2) I quite specifically do ''not'' want account creation rights. I'm more than busy enough with the stuff that my institution pays me to do - which includes investigating misuse, but does ''not'' include becoming the bottleneck for WP account provisioning.[[User:Steveb|Steveb]] ([[User talk:Steveb|talk]]) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
:::The specific process isn't detailed on Wikipedia, to help prevent people gaming the system (see [[WP:BEANS]]). You can follow the instructions at [[WP:OTRS]] to contact them, and the OTRS team will help walk you through the steps to verify your identity. It's a touch convoluted, but it kinda has to be to prevent folks faking it. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
::::OK, I was sceptical before, but now I call [[Wiktionary:Shenanigan|Shenanigan]]s. You're saying that there's a secret, undocumented procedure, that somehow I should have known how to follow in order to prove my identity, and you say that it can't be documented because then Bad People would use it. Plenty of other sites have been able to verify my identity; I've written systems to verify the identities of other people (it's not rocket science). On top of all that, I'm less and less convinced that I care if any WP admins know whether I'm "the real Steve Bennett", because it will make no difference to how the users at my institution get treated. I think I'm going to go back to the Real World for a while.[[User:Steveb|Steveb]] ([[User talk:Steveb|talk]]) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, never mind OTRS. It doesn't address the issues at hand. Bottom line is you want an e-mail every time someone from your IP address vandalizes? And then you'll ''immediately'' stop them on your end, even on nights and weekends and holidays? For the e-mail, try [[WP:BOTREQ]]. For your claim to immediately stop vandalism on your end, now ''I'' call Shenanigans. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Times New Roman;">[[User:Wknight94|<span style="color: #EE5B0D;">Wknight94</span>]] [[User talk:Wknight94|<sup style="color: blue;">talk</sup>]]</span> 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,383:
:::I suggest you start examing yourself. I have already admitted that on the specal relatvity pages addition of the template may have been provocative. But your behavior on pages where you are not an involved editor is just abominable. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
::As an outside party, I have to agree with Dicklyon. Iblis, this is never going to be policy, nor a guideline, as it stands. It's just too much in conflict with [[WP:OR]]. At this point, I suggest you drop trying to get it adopted until you can rewrite the essay to be more in standing with OR, then propose it on [[WP:VPR|the village pump]]. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
:::It is absolutely not in conflict with NOR policy at all. Also, like it or not, it is already the de-facto policy on many science articles, albeit an unwritten one. The essay '''strengthens''' the NOR policy by giving advice on editing technical science articles. On the NOR age itself, writing anything about editing articles with a heavy mathematical content is taboo. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
::::There are many people, independent of the subject, telling you it '''is'' in conflict with NOR. I think you're far too close to this issue. If it's the practice on those articles, well, that's an issue to be taken up with the editors of those articles. Writing about heavy mathematical topics is not "taboo," but it must be carefully cited to reliable sources. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
:::::It may be in conflict with the text of the NOR page when interpreted very pedantically, not with the idea that Original Research is not allowed. I think this is the point made by Carl on the NOR page. I have not heard any plausible arguments showing that ESCA would lead to real "original research" (apart from simply violating the literal text of the NOR page). There is no problem at all with ESCA when it comes to careful citations to reliable sources. ESCA simply gives some guidelines that help to make sure that whatever is edited in the article will indeed reflect what the sources say.
:::::Of course, I have to accept that at this time there is little support for ESCA. But when I think about how I can improve ESCA, I can only deal it constructive criticism and not with knee-jerk rejections. Unfortunately, 95% of the nay-sayers have rejected ESCA because of flawed reasons. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,397:
::What on earth does 'appears in invisible form' mean? [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
:::I believe that's Iblis' novel term for his statement above, that people are already practicing the advice in his essay on certain pages. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
::::You may be right, but I'd prefer to hear from Iblis what he means by his self-contradictory statement. He certainly doesn't mean it literally. —[[User:Finell|Finell]] [[User_talk:Finell|(Talk)]] 22:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,489:
:Uh two people Agree and one Oppose..I oppose too. Thats not exactly consensus. Born2cycle explained it perfectly.--[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
::That's something to discuss on the article talk pages. There's nothing else here for Admins to do. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
:::?? Please read the talk page. There was no actual discussion.--[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: ... and that fact would be your first problem. Major changes should be discussed. Controversial changes should be discussed. Reverted changes should be discussed. That's what the talkpage of the article is for. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">talk→</span>]]<span style="border:1px solid blue;">''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">←track</span>]]) 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
::::That was my point. Go to the Talk page, and discuss changes. At this point, it's a content dispute, so there's nothing else for admins to do here. I'm re-adding the Resolved template that was removed. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
:::::Well they can unlock the page. At which point a discussion can continue. Then, an actual agreement/consensus can be reached. THEN, its resolved. --[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::As the talk page is ''not'' locked, there is nothing except pride currently preventing a discussion.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 14:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 2,159:
:::I suggest you start examing yourself. I have already admitted that on the specal relatvity pages addition of the template may have been provocative. But your behavior on pages where you are not an involved editor is just abominable. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
::As an outside party, I have to agree with Dicklyon. Iblis, this is never going to be policy, nor a guideline, as it stands. It's just too much in conflict with [[WP:OR]]. At this point, I suggest you drop trying to get it adopted until you can rewrite the essay to be more in standing with OR, then propose it on [[WP:VPR|the village pump]]. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
:::It is absolutely not in conflict with NOR policy at all. Also, like it or not, it is already the de-facto policy on many science articles, albeit an unwritten one. The essay '''strengthens''' the NOR policy by giving advice on editing technical science articles. On the NOR age itself, writing anything about editing articles with a heavy mathematical content is taboo. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
::::There are many people, independent of the subject, telling you it '''is'' in conflict with NOR. I think you're far too close to this issue. If it's the practice on those articles, well, that's an issue to be taken up with the editors of those articles. Writing about heavy mathematical topics is not "taboo," but it must be carefully cited to reliable sources. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
:::::It may be in conflict with the text of the NOR page when interpreted very pedantically, not with the idea that Original Research is not allowed. I think this is the point made by Carl on the NOR page. I have not heard any plausible arguments showing that ESCA would lead to real "original research" (apart from simply violating the literal text of the NOR page). There is no problem at all with ESCA when it comes to careful citations to reliable sources. ESCA simply gives some guidelines that help to make sure that whatever is edited in the article will indeed reflect what the sources say.
:::::Of course, I have to accept that at this time there is little support for ESCA. But when I think about how I can improve ESCA, I can only deal it constructive criticism and not with knee-jerk rejections. Unfortunately, 95% of the nay-sayers have rejected ESCA because of flawed reasons. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 2,173:
::What on earth does 'appears in invisible form' mean? [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
:::I believe that's Iblis' novel term for his statement above, that people are already practicing the advice in his essay on certain pages. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
::::You may be right, but I'd prefer to hear from Iblis what he means by his self-contradictory statement. He certainly doesn't mean it literally. —[[User:Finell|Finell]] [[User_talk:Finell|(Talk)]] 22:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 2,265:
:Uh two people Agree and one Oppose..I oppose too. Thats not exactly consensus. Born2cycle explained it perfectly.--[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
::That's something to discuss on the article talk pages. There's nothing else here for Admins to do. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
:::?? Please read the talk page. There was no actual discussion.--[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: ... and that fact would be your first problem. Major changes should be discussed. Controversial changes should be discussed. Reverted changes should be discussed. That's what the talkpage of the article is for. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">talk→</span>]]<span style="border:1px solid blue;">''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">←track</span>]]) 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
::::That was my point. Go to the Talk page, and discuss changes. At this point, it's a content dispute, so there's nothing else for admins to do here. I'm re-adding the Resolved template that was removed. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You
:::::Well they can unlock the page. At which point a discussion can continue. Then, an actual agreement/consensus can be reached. THEN, its resolved. --[[User:Chunk Champion|Chunk Champion]] ([[User talk:Chunk Champion|talk]]) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::As the talk page is ''not'' locked, there is nothing except pride currently preventing a discussion.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 14:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
| |||