User talk:Salvio giuliano
|If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please
and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error (even a really stupid one) on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you.
If you are here to inquire as to why I deleted an article you created, please read this page and, if it does not satisfy your curiosity, please drop me a line, .
Admin policy. Fellow administrators, if you disagree with one of my admin actions, please feel free to revert it. I just kindly ask you to leave an informative edit summary as to why you think I made a mistake; alternatively, if you prefer, you can leave a note on my talk page.
Finally, seeing as I am awfully forgetful lately, if you have asked me something either here on in private and I have not replied within a reasonable time, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
|“||→ Rather than be less
Cared not to be at all.
—Today's Motto of the Day
So despite the extended semi you placed on Serama, some sort of dispute has inexplicably flared up again. A dormant SPA, Rsteagall , emerged, did some promotional editing. I wouldn't exactly call this a major issue by itself, but it seems to have spurred the creation of a new user, NCOCEO , who made the edits needed to get autoconfirmed and went on to go and remove the picture added by the original SPA for some reason (meanwhile they claim a picture where a neck fades into a background tree isn't photoshopped, which is in my eyes quite a claim). It's clearly a sock of one of the IPs which fought over this article so many times. Can you give them an uninvolved warning (I have the feeling I'm taken to be some sort of Serama importer/seller/somethingorother based on past statements, by which party I'm not even sure anymore), and take any other appropriate action? Thanks, CMD (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more
- WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie
- Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who
- Featured content: F*&!
- Arbitration report: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case opens; New discretionary sanctions draft proposal available for review
There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.
The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.
Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.
your comment which pertained to WP:EXPLAINBLOCK
"the act of providing a reason for the block is part of the action of restricting the user"
Hello Salvio, you said the above, as a metaphorical example to show a related point, over in a thread related to the Manning article. I'll avoid linking to it, unless you would like to see the 100KB thread again. :-)
But my question is not related to Manning, but more to your tangential assertion about blocks. From what I have seen, there are three generic reasons, suitably vague enough to be used as justification for any kind of effort whatsoever. Typically, in the case of blocks the boilerplate explanation is usually "disruption" without specifying any diffs, let alone explaining what particular in the diff was disruptive.
Along the same lines, in the case of page-prot (which is a block on all non-admins or on all non-autoconfirmeds depending on strength... in the case of WP:FLAGGED it is a review-required rather than an outright block but the chilling effect is very similar). Almost invariably, the boilerplate reason given is "persistent vandalism" and I've *never* actually seen a diff to justify that explanation. There are cases where three episodes are dubbed 'persistent vandalism' and used to justify an indef prot.
The third generic reason is the most common, and methinks the most pernicious, which is when somebody reverts without explanation. In the days of yore™ typically the jargon 'rvv' was used, even when the edit was in good faith, because poor spelling was still classed as "vandalism" to many editors, and reverting poorly-spelled content with the three-letter-rvv-explanation was faster than giving a real explanation. Nowadays, there are still plenty of WP:NINJA-reverts, but rather than using the traditional rvv boilerplate, instead we use the "undid... seemed to me it was not constructive" phrasing, which certain blue-monster-shaped editors see as milquetoast. :-) My problem is not with the phrasing, specifically, my problem is with the lack of an authentic explanation (same as with the above cases).
I hope this small WP:WALLOFTEXT has authentically explained what I'm asking about. TLDR: are you *sure* that current policy specifies that admins must provide an authentic reason for their block? If so, are you sure that the spirit of the policy -- and not just the letter -- is actually being followed in practice? WP:EXPLAINBLOCK has a great first paragraph, but the second paragraph pretty much overturns it, to my mind. Thanks for improving wikipedia, please use the talkback trick, gracias. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)