User talk:Dylan620/Archives/2011/April

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access
User:Bonaparte/User:Iaaasi uses his talk page access to throw mud at me (the second time). Was this the original purpose of enabling him to edit the talk page? As you (and possibly other admins) still seem to read what he writes, do I need to point out his falsifications, distortions or should I just let it go? Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The original purpose of restoring Iaaasi's access to his talk page was to allow him to address comments in his ban discussion. That being said, it is preferred to discuss bans over a period of 48 hours, and Iaaasi's ban discussion has been open for roughly 56-69 hours. I'll post at AN asking whether consensus exists for a community ban, or if more discussion is required.
 * And I'm only really watching Iaaasi's posts to his talk page, for now; pointing out his "falsifications and distortions" may help to determine socks in the future, so please do. --Dylan620 (t • c) 22:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, while it was never proven that Iaaasi wasn't a sock of Bonaparte, it was never proven that he was either, and that's what matters. Please do not say that one user is a sock of another without proof (like CheckUser, for example). Unfounded sockpuppetry allegations are personal attacks (and so is your allegation of Iaaasi's "falsifications and distortions", pending the evidence that I have requested). --Dylan620 (t • c) 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

He was originally blocked as a sock of Bonaparte. Excirial's comment was the only reason for which he was treated as a "new user", quote:"It is possible that this account is a separate group of sock puppets from Bonaparte. User:iaaasi admitted he is the puppet master for User:Conttest and User:umumu, so it may be possible this is a separate group. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)" If you see a link between those two statements, notify me. Distortion: I changed the lead of the football team back to its longstanding title, because — as Iaaasi very well knows — there's a Requested move process only waiting to be closed by an admin with an overwhelming, clear support for that move. In fact he changed the lead of that article in a bad faith, because by the time he did that the process to move it to its original title (Golden Team or a similar version of it) enjoyed wide support. "militating for his ban": I haven't even voted there! I argued against the whole process as Excirial didn't give any reason for us to treat him as a new editor. I showed the links to admins to let them decide. My main concern was the detection of a banned editor from a new IP range. He claims: "The only sock account I used since last my block is User:Nauneim, which was already blocked (since 7 February 2010). I edited only its talk page. If editing that talk page was enabled, I considered it is nothing illegal": User:Nauneim's first edit was a removal of a Hungarian name, next moment he got autoblocked, because it was an IP recently used by Iaaasi. That's why he only edited its talk page. He even tried to blank the page after he had been caught. He falsely called others' edits vandalism, he even falsely reported at the vandalism noticeboard. He broke 3RR at the article Székely two days before the edit warring for which he was blocked. Neither User:Hobartimus, nor me reported him, so he could get away. Should we continue? Squash Racket (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While Iaaasi was suspected as a sock of Bonaparte, I don't see anything about that in the rationale for his first indef. In any event, Iaaasi is now formally banned, so even if he is Bonaparte, the matter has become irrelevant, as both sockfarms will now be reverted on sight.
 * Iaaasi didn't quite violate 3RR at Székely. To violate 3RR, you must make at least four reverts on a single article within a 24-hour timespan. While Iaaasi did make four reverts, those were in a timespan of 33 hours; he certainly edit-warred, though. I should note that if you or Hobartimus had reported Iaaasi for edit-warring, you would have reported yourselves as well, since you were both parties in the edit war (Hobartimus made three reverts, while you made two).
 * I think that by "since [his] last block", Iaaasi meant since his prior indef was reversed. That being said, Iaaasi should have known better than to use any socks at all; also, as Jpgordon had to use a rangeblock, it is plausible that Iaaasi had socked via IP's as well.
 * I agree with you about the AIV report, the Golden Team move discussion, and that you weren't "militating for [Iaaasi's] ban". --Dylan620 (t • c) 18:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No matter how I count it, he broke 3RR on 22nd March 2011 at the article Székely (that means within 24 hours). While Hobartimus did not. Besides, he edit warred alone against two editors, so he shouldn't have pushed it at all...
 * But now that isn't very important that much anymore. Squash Racket (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bacon WikiCup 2011 Award

 * Yay :) --Dylan620 (t • c) 03:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of ACC tool users' pledge
ACC tool users' pledge, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of ACC tool users' pledge during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  10:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm Reporting you for edit warring!!!
This is your final warning!!! I cut you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.74.154.74 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You replaced the article's entire content with this. Why should I not have reverted that? --Dylan620 (t • c) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
It might be worth closing the others aswell, but I'll leave that up to you. Unsure if I can withdraw an AFD or not but I doubt it. Oh and the comment above made me smile. Best,   « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. BTW, Special:Search/withdrawn prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion turns up over 6,000 results, so I think it's safe to assume that withdrawing is legal as far as AfD goes. --Dylan620 (t • c) 03:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for moving my user boxes
Thank You so much for moving them to the proper spot. This was my first time creating userboxes and I was having trouble finding where to put them, but now I see where. Thank you once again--Nyswimmer (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: My Userpage
Thanks, I totally understand. I'll read those pages and not post any private info again.  Rcsprinter  Gimme a message  14:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Redaction
Why are you editing my comments? Keristrasza (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've sent you an e-mail about that. --Dylan620 (t • c) 23:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your email doesn't actually answer my question, I'm afraid. Please point me to the policy you are following so that I may educate myself. Keristrasza (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly a policy, but it does summarize how other policies apply in this situation; Protecting children's privacy states: "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information... should be advised that disclosing personal information is a bad idea and is potentially dangerous. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." The user's mention of his own age on his userpage has already been oversighted, so I decided that the best course of action would be to remove any mentions of his age at the ANI thread. --Dylan620 (t • c) 23:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly a policy ... Exactly, not policy. In fact, a user essay. The actual policy is WP:CHILDPROTECT. Keristrasza (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely common sense would dictate that it is best to protect the user's privacy? I should also note that I am acting in line with this arbitration remedy - see Arbitration for more information. --Dylan620 (t • c) 00:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another bloody essay. POLICY man, or sthu. Besides, did you actually read that essay? "When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators... Sometimes the user is immature and ends up being blocked for disruption. If they are not disruptive, personal information may be removed and the user counseled." The user we are discussing has yet to be banned, if at all. Their age is a vital part of the decision making process to be carried out by the community. Keristrasza (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think the essay is worthless, why bother quoting it? Their exact age is completely irrelevant to the discussion; it's none of your business what it is. I'm still uncertain what point you're trying to get out of this. AD 01:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The age became relevant as soon as it was decided - outside of policy - to redact it, potentially leading to the community not having all of the facts at their disposal when deciding what, if any, sanctions to apply. Insofar as it might be none of my business, it's none of yours, either: who made you the arbiter of age disclosure on WP? Exactly: noone. I've hopefully drawn sufficient attention to it, so I'm done with the discussion now. I'm winding my neck in, I'd suggest you do the same before you insult me again. Keristrasza (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA
I think you'd make a good admin editor. Good luck. :) –BuickCenturyDriver 17:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 17:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Q11 is being used to not to test the RfA candidate, but to obtain feedback based on this contentious discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at that discussion later tonight or tomorrow. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 22:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know you, but like very much what you said in you RfA and hope you succeed! Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 22:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

E-Mail
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 22:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Also, there are a couple of opposes which are very, very weakly-reasoned and unfair; I would be tempted to move my neutral to support with a solid answer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happens...
happens. I'm sure you know your RfA is running close right now. I really hope that however the tally ends up, you end up passing and becoming a wonderful administrator. But if it doesn't, you need to just take all the suggestions, apply them, and try again in a few months. There's nothing we can do but hope that you'll pass. ;) Best,  ceran  thor 02:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And, of course, try your best to ignore some of the quite frankly stupid and ridiculous opposes. I hope the closing crat discounts those !votes, but one can't be certain. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the minimum is 75% positive, it's going to be a borderline decision for the one who handles nomination closures. I really think you deserve this.  –BuickCenturyDriver 22:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments. Good luck, I hope you succeed :) Orphan Wiki  22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

thought you deserve this

 * Thank you very much! I won't be too upset if it ends in a "no consensus" result, but you can never predict what will happen in an RfA. Right now, I feel sorry for the 'crats, seeing as how they'll most likely have yet another borderline RfA to deal with. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 19:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am worried about some of the support !votes, particularly those that seem to come from users who have literally no experience making content edits. They're doing more harm than good.  I don't suspect they're actually opposers putting up a false flag to make you look bad, but they must be coming from somewhere since it isn't normal to see this many "new" votes on an RfA (and this even with the RfA protected to keep out IP editors).  I made a comment under support #81 that I somewhat regret, as it almost looks like I'm secretly favoring the opposers, and I apologize for that.  Since I don't seem to be doing you any good I'll stay out of this RfA for the remaining 40 hours or so.  But I do think something unusual is going on here and that it is not helping your chances.  —  Soap  —  23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I wish I hand looked on your RFA before the close. Have some aspirin; after reading that, I need some as well. Danger (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll decline; I'm actually shocked at the absence of a splitting headache. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirded. I hope you'll keep up the good work and the positive attitude regardless of how this turns out. 28bytes (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will, thanks. (check your talk page if you haven't already) --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA
Your RfA is pending closing. The result will probably not promoted. If you are promoted, congrats! EBE123 talkContribs 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, congratulations if your RfA passes. Sadly, I have my doubts, and I hope you stay on Wikipedia. However, either way, your efforts have been Herculean and your struggle serves as an inspiration to us all. (Interpret "us" as you wish.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guoguo12 (talk • contribs)
 * Darn, sorry about that (it's been a while since that's happened). Thanks for catching that. Guoguo12  --Talk--  00:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Herculean? That's a new one :D Thanks! --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 05:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

After the RfA


84 is no mean number of support !votes. Shame about the avalanche of opposition. Some had a point, others it seems, just piled on because of your age. If its any consolation, my  own recent RfA very  nearly failed  because people piled on due to believing - quite wrongly and ironically -  that  I am against the idea of  young people being editors and admins! In the fnal analysis, your RfA is another strong reason to plough ahead with reform of the system. You may wish to consider joining the project at WP:RFA2011. Keep up the good work, and if you need any help and advice, you know where you can come knocking :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe next time. Don't give up.  –BuickCenturyDriver 07:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was still pretty close until the last-minute pile-on. I think you comported yourself admirably, and you can take satisfaction from the large amount of positive things said. And I'm quite convinced you'll succeed in a future run -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you were looking for a post-mortem on the RFA, have a look at my comment at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Don't take it personally and good luck in the future, I am sure with a little more seasoning and experience you will pass with flying colors next time. Andrevan@ 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dylan620, I was trying to figure out how old you are. If you're 18, I wanted to state that I don't understand anyone calling you a child. Additionally (whether 16, 17, or 18), I'm sorry you had to put up with being treated as though you are some 5-year-old who cannot handle his impulses. Some of the opposition was more so against your maturity level than your age, and I can understand that reasoning a lot better than "Oh, he's 18. Too much of a child." Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some or all of the assumptions of his age may have come from this thread on Wikipedia review. — Soap  —  17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see there and at Requests for adminship/Dylan620 2, he is stated as age 15. Since he hasn't objected to the assumption, I can only assume that he must be 15. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do consider going through the RfA process again sometime in the future. I know it must take a (very) thick skin, but that is probably a necessity for being an Admin anyway. Best wishes! LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone.
 * Kudpung: Thanks; I'll take a look at the RfA reform project. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 01:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LoveUxoxo: Yeah, it takes a lot of guts to go the whole week at RfA, especially when the tides make an obtuse turn in such a short period of time (I had 90% support at 2105z April 21, and by 0305z April 24, I had sunk below the discretionary range). I may take a third crack at RfA someday, though it won't be before 2011 ends.

--Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 01:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A few notes
I didn't come in on any side. This was mainly because I didn't think I'd come across you enough to have a preformed opinion. I was impressed with the support votes, but an even more impressed by your resolve to use the negative feedback. Any system using only positive feedback will run out of control. I had no idea of your age until it became the focus of attention. And what's more, I don't care if you are 15. (Apart from which, it appears to be unreferenced material...) OK. Sort out those references that they were going on about. Work over more areas - study and participate in CSD and AfD. If you've got exams in the pipeline - they have priority (unless you are the certain heir to a few millions in a worthwhile currency - and even then devaluation can happen...). If you have time, AfD can be valuable for dispute control, showing calm in the face of attacking socks and so on. And if you've got a sense of humour, there's a userbox on my page you might like. (I didn't create it, but it was made for me from one of my Non-boxy Things by a user who was last heard of making soup. No, I'm not kidding.) Good luck, and I'll be watching out for you now. (Sounds like a threat...) Peridon (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)