User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 33

An active vandal
I am referring here to a vandal (Oswaglll) who I have already reported, but has been uncommonly active this morning vandalizing my user and talk pages several times, in addition to other pages. Thanks for your help. Cheers, Caballero// Historiador    ☊  15:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the time. Vsmith has already blocked the vandal. Thanks. Caballero// Historiador    ☊  15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

UserEnzolifesciences
Although I've blocked thousands of accounts myself, I'm uneasy about the hard block here
 * The name appears to be a "Mark at WidgetsUSA" type specifically excluded here
 * The user had accepted that he had a COI on the article talk page
 * He had accepted that he should not further edit the conflicted article

Your call, but I'd be inclined to unblock, or change to a soft block to permit a name change. If he then transgresses, a hard block would be justified, cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not normally a hardass about this kind of thing, but we're going to have to disagree here. I might buy into your last two points (although his accepting a COI certainly doesn't help your argument IMO) but this account to Enzo Biochem is the same as Google Earth is to Google, or Disney Parks is to The Walt Disney Company. If he wants a name change, I'll unblock him for that, but he can request it without changing the block. Katietalk 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Fine, personally I'd have this sort of account name blocked on principle and I've blocked similar myself but I've had my knuckles rapped a couple of time for blocking "Mark at WidgetsUSA" names as out of procedure and discouraging COI disclosure. I've also had the point made to me that although COI editing is strongly discouraged, (bizarrely) it's not actually banned. I must be getting soft, thanks anyway, Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

anushasana parva
Greetings, from User talk:37.217.133.213

Thank you for your message "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection." I have followed the advice to the letter. I have given my explanation, my point of view, and left a message on the talk pages of the two editors who repeatedly deleted 89.11 percent of the page "Anushasana Parva", a part of the sacred texts of the Hindu religion. I hope to reach consensus

good faith chaos at Chinese stock market crash (2015–present)

 * (cross-posted from User talk:Beeblebrox, sorry): Hey, I don't really pay attention to adminly things, and don't know where to complain, but you seem to have interacted with User:EggyEggPercent, no wait, I mean User:George Ho. If you could add some order to the chaos he.they is/are causing at Chinese stock market crash (2015–present), it would generate good karma for you in your next username. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shall we take it here or there? --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

AIV edits
Hey User:KrakatoaKatie, I was just wondering what you consider a good amount of AIV edits to be in order to apply successfully for WP:RFP/R. Thanks. Boomer Vial (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of AIV edits so much as that's an indication of your counter-vandalism activity. Rollback is only for reverting vandalism, so we don't give it to people who aren't active in that area. Contributing and reporting at AIV is simply one way to measure that. Don't be the guy who acts like he wants to collect user rights. If you need rollback, we'll give it to you. You don't need it right now. Katietalk 14:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be honestly, I was just asking out of curiosity. Thanks for the response anyhow. Oh, I love your name, by the way. Cheers. Boomer Vial (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Dan Campbell
Could you please revert their edit? I would but I'd violate WP:3RR and I'm not doing that again. I did it once, long long ago. Crash Under ride  19:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Removal of unreferenced, controversial content on a BLP is an explicit exemption to 3RR. You're fine, but I reverted it anyway. :-) Katietalk 19:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm....well, I was given bad information recently. lol. Thanks for your help. Crash Under ride  19:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gala19000
You protected this page due to edit war but it seems this is not enough for Gala19000. He has edit warred in many articles including Gülbahar Hatun, Selim I. The user has also removed sourced content from Gülbahar Hatun article. Now Gala19000 is playing with Siege of Plevna. Probably another warning or even a block could cool off this user.Lostrigot (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur. He is also edit warring on Greek War of Independence now. In case you were not aware, this user was warned of discretionary sanctions a month before yours but evidently has shown no signs of heeding it. His whole time on Wikipedia has been nothing but WP:BATTLEFIELD edit wars, a ban and/or block is now needed. --Steverci (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Krakatoa Katie,

My name is Michael Arndt. I am an American screenwriter.

I am also a Wikipedia newbie, so please forgive me for my general ignorance and all-around cluelessness about all things Wikipedia.

Recently, I attempted to correct false information about me that was posted on my Wikipedia page. However, each time I made a correction, the false information re-appeared.

Finally, it seems you blocked me from accessing my own Wikipedia page.

So I'm turning to you for help -- could you advise me as to how I might make corrections to my own page without being blocked and without having those corrections being immediately undone?

Any advise you could offer would be very much appreciated.

I hope you can understand that it is frustrating to see false information about oneself posted on a public forum like Wikipedia, and to not be able to set the record straight.

Thanks for your kind assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Michael

99.74.170.198 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Weekly Idol→
Hey, Katie! My name is Lea and I've been following the posts on a korean show called Weekly Idol's Wikipedia profile. It seems to me that yesterday, there were 3 more groups scheduled to make a guest appearance, but now they're all missing from the page. So I decided to talk to You about it, seeing it was You who edited the page last. I'm just curious wether those groups are coming or not. ☺ I'm sorry if I'm bothering you. -Lea 93.136.55.93 (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vehbi Koç
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vehbi Koç. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You gave me a (very short) editing block
No, problem. The block has already expired. However, I don't think the block was fair, due to your interpretation of wikipedia rules.

I've left the unblock request on my talk page. (the unblock request couldn't be dealt with before my block expired) And someone has put non wiki on it, to reflect that no further action needs to be taken.

Could you take a look at it, (ignoring the parts that ask to be unblocked) and give me your opinion on the points that I made, please?

I won't remake all the points again, here - I'm pretty sure I covered everything on my talk page. Thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I raised the edit-war again, more as a proforma than anything else, but I noticed that the 3RR has changed since I was a lad: The three-revert rule now states:

So even though DB was making reverts on different material within the same article, each revert still counted to the total. Just making the point FYI now, as the thing was (rightly) dismissed as stale. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Still forum shopping, Pete. Spacecowboy420 raised these arguments once in the original 3RR/N. No dice. He repeated the same arguments in his block appeal. Nothing. You repeated them a third time at AN/I. Nobody bit. You repeated them a fourth time at 3RR/N, and again you were told "NO!". Now, here you are, again, exact same issue, exact same argument, exact same evidence. For the fifth time. If this is not forum shopping, what is?<P>I thought you understood something about Wikipedia, Pete. You've got to stop. You're out of control. It is time for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions to stop this guy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis, it's as if you aren't reading or understanding what I wrote above. The boxed quote above is a direct quote from WP:3RR. It's for the benefit of the admin who dealt with the original 3RRN report, noting that all reverts count towards the total, not just those on one point. Chewing over the past is a particularly fruitless exercise, but we can certainly learn from mistakes and aim for better behaviour in future. I trust you agree with this point. --Pete (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The way to drop it is to just drop it. If you're still re-posting the argument, you haven't let it go. You are the most amazing hypocrite, with your platitudes about the past. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Katie, I was hoping for a reply. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And, still waiting... No offence, I'm sure you're busy - but it would be rather nice if you could address this issue. You had the time to block me from editing, so please find a little time to explain if you interpreted the rules differently from me, if you made a mistake or if there was another reason for your actions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, this is all about to turn up at AN shortly. If it does, that's where I'll make any further comment. Katietalk 16:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you got that notion, but I've taken up your suggestion here. This is not criticism of your good faith admin actions, but an example of a problem with process. --Pete (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying, it wasn't a major issue, I just wanted some clarification regarding exactly why blocks were given/not given in that specific situation, and your answers there have answered my curiosity. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Frampton
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Frampton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Protecting User talkpages?
Hello Katie, it is I, the Wikipedian formerly known as Poepkop, but now as - see signature :-) (If you wish to check, can check my archives). I wanted to ask, if it is technically possible to have one's User Talkpage not just protected for IP edits but also for either (1) new accounts or (2) accounts that have made less than, say 50 or 100 edits? I noticed today how easy it is to create an account, do some vandalism, say 10-15 edits if you are fast and noone at AIV, then get blocked, just create a new account, do more vandalism & threats, untill finally a heavier block is set but still vandalism and threats . These throw-away accounts do not reach high edit numbers as they are usually blocked at some point? (please ping) Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Well, there are a couple of things you need to stick in the front of your brain about this stuff. Semi-protection means accounts that aren't autoconfirmed can't edit the page. Autoconfirmed is either granted by an administrator (rarely done) or is automagically granted to accounts four days old with at least ten edits. Otherwise, it's full protection. There's an RFC ongoing now to make another group to conform with ARBPIA3, but I don't think we'd ever consider user talk page protection from this new group. In your request, semi should get most of those edits, but we really, really don't like to protect user talk pages unless there's ongoing, current, egregious vandalism. I don't think I've ever protected a user talk page longer than a few days. There's an admin (I think it's an admin) who has to have his talk page locked from time to time, but he has a separate talk subpage for IPs to go to when that happens and a notice to that effect right up at the top. I can't remember who it is, but if I do I'll let you know.
 * If I can give you some advice, it's to stop engaging with these people. Don't revert them, don't talk to them, don't do anything but ignore them. Nothing good comes from back-and-forth with a troll. Do not feed the trolls. Report them to AIV and/or ping an admin who's active currently to help. I went through this same kind of stuff before I got the mop (still do from time to time) and trust me - ignoring them is the very best strategy.
 * When we block registered accounts, there's an automatic block of the IP address that account last used. That means that any other registered account can't edit from a blocked user's IP address (without an IP block exemption, and admins/crats are always exempt). In addition, 99.9% of the time we block new account creation from that IP address. If you're regularly getting the kind of stuff in your diff, that's sockpuppetry and you need to open an SPI to get a CheckUser into it. It's probably from a dynamic IP range, or a network with IPv6 addressing, meaning that he's either already registered the names in advance or he's changing IP addresses. If it's the latter, the disruption could go on for a long time because of the number of addresses available in an IPv6 network to a single end user. It will take a CheckUser to see the IP range and stop it.
 * My advice here is to go to WP:SPI and develop your case. I think this kind of thing is going to be a bigger problem going forward because IPv6 addressing is becoming more and more common, and our normal block procedures aren't going to be as effective. We'll have to rangeblock more in the future. Hope that answers your questions. If I can help further, let me know. :-) Katietalk 17:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Katie thanks for your advice, for now: for the SPI I would include a Checkuser for this case, right (I am not sure as a non-admin when to say yes or no to a Checkuser for an SPI? Will come back this weekend for (a bit) of thoughts. Thanks for explaining! Horseless Headman (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't make the decision about CheckUser involvement in an SPI. You make your case based on behavioral evidence, and one of the clerks will endorse it for CU or simply ask for blocks of the accounts. It's not technically socking. It's block evasion, though the results are pretty much the same. Just read the instructions and put it all together. It's not difficult. :-) Katietalk 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
About the revert I made in talk page, I made it mainly because the user in question was giving me an order to do what the user wanted, instead of trying to reach consensus. Additionally, the revert on Tunisia's article page was made firstly, without giving a source. I even wrote on his talk page to stop with the edit war. I have read and understood your message and I want to avoid problems. Thanks for reading. --B.Lameira (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Reverting on your talk page is fine. It's the edit summary you used that concerned me, because it implied that only admins were allowed to issue user warnings, which is absolutely not the case. You're both really fortunate that you haven't been blocked, so stay away from that page for at least the next 24 hours. I won't protect it if you're still talking about it and not blindly reverting each other, but it's on my radar now, so step lightly. :-) Katietalk 21:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I didn't really mean that admins were the only ones who can issue warnings, it also was especially what the user wrote on the proper edit, and I did not like the tone of it, like was giving me an order, instead of trying to reach a solution for the disagreement and, to me, user was not giving solid evidence. :/ It's okay for me that you do it (page-protect) if necessary. As for myself, I will not do anything more to the page, also because I don't like to become bored and stressed. :) --B.Lameira (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Seminole
I don't know whether you will ignore this thread. However, this article faces recent vandalism this month, despite low edit count. Shall you renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

FIFA (video game series)
One newly registered user became autoconfirmed by vandalizing the other page and then vandalized this page. I don't know whether semi-protection is needed, and I'm not sure how effective PC was. However, shall you extend PC time under these circumstances? --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

edit war with B.Lameira
I don't know what to say to him anymore, he just won't stop, please can an admin rule over this situation, it wont be solved otherwise.Fumehime (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry
I accidentally overwrote your protection settings on Johnny Galecki. I have restored the one month protection. I need to file a Twinkle bug about this, it's the second time this week this has happened to me. BethNaught (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't usually lock stuff that long right off the bat, but the diffs I hid are pretty bad. Not gonna put up with that stuff and it's from multiple IPs. Maybe a month will settle it down. Usually Twinkle will stop me from overwriting, but I know pushed out an update yesterday to the block module - maybe it did something to the protection module? I don't speak Twinkle. I just push der buttons and watch der blinkenlights. ;-) Katietalk 15:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, no yesterday's deploy was for the CSD module and shouldn't affect the protect module. So you have seen Twinkle stop you from overriding protections Katie? If it does it's because MediaWiki is (correctly) returning an error, just like it does when you attempt to block someone who just got blocked. I'll have to do some testing to figure out under what conditions this happens. Best &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  16:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh - CSD, block, it's all the same. Gimme a break - I'm old. ;-) I know it's working right for me. Just don't know why it's not working right for BethNaught. Based on the way this week has gone for me, it oughta be the other way around. Katietalk 16:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I left a bug report on WT:TW. BethNaught (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Brie Larson protection
Hi, I don't see how protecting the page is going to help anything -- especially when the current version is the way the trouble-making editor wants it to be. I could start a discussion on the article talk page, but if he refused to discuss on his talk page, he's not going to on the article's either -- and as you see from his comment: "I don't see a reason why I should discuss" (and it has nothing to do with "adding references" btw). He has had a history of this. He's been blocked three times before for edit warring, and doesn't seem to have learned anything from it. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello? It's been two days with no reply. Are you ignoring me? Did I just waste my time in reporting this user? -- because I have not received any help. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not apologize for doing other things with my weekend, particularly since you didn't give me any links or diffs to help me look into your claims. I probably protect 25+ pages a week, and I'm not going to dig through my protection log to find it if you can't be bothered to do it yourself. If you have a behavioral issue with an editor, IP or not, take it to ANI, but be sure to support it with evidence. I'll reply there if/when you do. Katietalk 21:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask for, or expect, an apology. I saw that you had not had any activity for awhile, and that's one thing, but then after you've been back for a little while and still no reply, well that's another issue. I gave the diffs in the report. All you have to do is click on Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Musdan77 in the TOC. I didn't think I would need to give a link to that. When editor has to resort to reporting another editor, he's already gone though plenty. It would be nice if the admin, who is supposed to be helping, would understand that. This is only my second time reporting someone for edit warring. The first time must have been years ago, because I don't remember the circumstances, but I'm pretty sure it had a better outcome than this time. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I remember now - edit warring over a table. Look, the talk page is 10 weeks old. Ten weeks! No one has ever used it! Neither of you are discussing - you're just reverting each other, and while there was no 3RR violation on either of your parts, you both could have been blocked. I detest blocking over MOS issues and I protected the page instead to provoke discussion, which obviously hasn't happened. Be the bigger guy, start a talk page discussion, ping the other editor, and go from there. Katietalk 00:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You obviously didn't look! What's the point in me giving diffs if you don't read them?? I followed BRD. That's the reason for the report. I left two comments on his talk page (even though it's the person that was reverted who is supposed to start a discussion) with no reply (here). BRD says, discuss on "the article's talk page or the editor's user talk page". And it's not "edit warring over a table" only. Have you seen the headings? But, it wouldn't be "blocking over MOS issues"; it's a disruptive editor not following BRD. That's what should be obvious. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

re. page protection
I should've been clearer in my recent request. Pending changes obviously won't work and since IPs are effectively banned from the area, could you please switch it to standard semi-protection? Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're correct, and I put indefinite semi-protection on a minute ago. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 21:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And again, thanks for making the change :) --TMCk (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

each editor that continues to persist in this injustice against my name on the tube challenge page of wikipedia will be named in lawsuit unless they wish to apologise to me personally on email downtonroad@aol.com u change my comment from telling the truth about wikipedia. WIKIpedia needs to change their policies and apologise for mistakes that they make u need to be held accountable. end of — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.142 (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

spammer
05:30, January 21, 2016 KrakatoaKatie (talk | contribs) blocked JulianJohnston (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Spam / advertising-only account)
 * resurrected:  see . - üser:Altenmann >t 16:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. Would you report that EL to WP:WPSPAM and get it on the blacklist? Katietalk 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Arul Wok
Hi Katie,

You have recently blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. However, I propose that it may not be a bad idea to block them indefinitely because based upon their actions/edits, they appear to be a sock-puppet account of Sockpuppet investigations/1MDB Group. Thanks! 172.56.39.81 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was confirmed by CU and he's been indeffed. Katietalk 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RFPERM etiquette
I have a question for you about RFPERM, namely: in what circumstances is it considered necessary or desirable to contact the admin who previously declined a request?

I pinged you about Boomer Vial's request just now. I would have granted rollback if there hadn't been your decline previously, since their AIV requsts have continued to be quality and (Tim Zukas mass undo left aside) a spot-check of their reverts shows they know what's vandalism or not.

Thanks for your advice. BethNaught (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, it depends. If it's clear that the candidate will do all right with the user right, like we just wanted to make sure when we decilned last time, I'll go ahead and do it without pinging the admin who declined. If there was a specific reason it was declined (other than sheer lack of CV work, and he has enough good work now) or the candidate was blocked recently, I'll ping the admin(s) involved. I don't mind being pinged at all, and I don't think the others who patrol PERM do either, so use your best judgment. :-) Katietalk 23:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess using judgement wisely is what we're elected to do :) I'll go and grant them rollback then. You did already. I didn't see that. Sorry. Thanks again and I'll bear what you say in mind. BethNaught (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Safe-space Protection - Anon IP Addresses
First, thanks so much for your protection on Safe-space. I appreciate it.

Per your request, here are the 12 IP addresses in question, which have made 18 disruptive edits since October: 167.56.141.131, 167.56.152.48, 167.56.163.220, 167.56.20.42, 167.56.32.203, 167.57.115.192, 167.57.12.70, 167.57.121.116, 167.57.182.77, 167.57.44.112, 167.57.78.77, and 167.57.83.120. It's a pretty wide range and a lookup comes back with "DOD Information Center" in Columbus Ohio. I'm not sure how much nondisruptive editing those ranges do (or even how to find out - do a search on "recent edits" perhaps?), so I can't speak to collateral damage of a rangeblock.

I'll watch here so you can let me know what you decide. Thanks again for your work on this.

<i style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:SeaGreen;">KNHaw</i> <sup style="color:SeaGreen;">(talk) 16:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the list. This is an IP out of Montevideo, Uruguay not Ohio. One block appears to be dialup while the other is broadband. Sadly, the range right now is too big to block - it would be 128K addresses in two separate blocks, and the collateral damage is too big (we use this tool to find the contributions of an IP range). Lots of edits about sports in there in the last three weeks. I've made short rangeblocks that big before, but the edits have only been disruptive from the range. It is possible he's using a proxy but I haven't had time to look into that. For now, protection will have to do; maybe he'll find a new hobby in the next 30 days. Let me know if I can answer questions or if you need more help. :-) Katietalk 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * D'ho!! Thanks for the corrected lookup.  The regex I used was faulty and I dropped a bad IP into the lookup.  I corrected it on the list I gave to you but I'd already typed Ohio in my message.   I should have redone the lookup and made sure the message was right.  Mea culpa.  As far as a block being to big, that's completely understood.


 * I understand if you're busy, but if you can spare a moment, I had a question about being an Admin. I've been an editor for a while and poke around on vandal patrol on an unofficial basis now and then.  But I'm a computer professional (25 years flipping bits) and want to contribute more.  However, there's no way I could do more than a few hours each week and I get the feeling that is really too limited a contribution to pitch in constructively as an Admin.  As a result I've never applied.  Am I wrong about that?  Otherwise, do you know of any technical projects that don't require admin-dom to contribute to?


 * Thanks again. <i style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:SeaGreen;">KNHaw</i> <sup style="color:SeaGreen;">(talk)  17:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Personal opinion here: RFA is a nasty beast, and if you don't have more than a few hours a week right now, I'd stay away. There are admins who spend most of their time here, and there are admins like me who pop in and out. Just depends, really. Steady commitment to the project and desire to help go a long way. I'd wait if I were you for more time on the project and more free time in your life.
 * As to helping in other ways, they are legion. Nontechnical? New page patrol is often interesting - you can really get sucked down a rabbit hole if you find a new article that needs improvement. The tech people always seem to need help. I'd start with the tech ambassadors. The sheer number of bugs and problems with the MediaWiki software boggles my mind. If you know regex, and apparently you do, we need edit filters written and debugged. Read the EF page to see how to help there. Hope that gives you a few ideas. Thanks for wanting to do the grunt work that most people don't see. :-) Katietalk 02:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. I'm going to be getting in touch with the edit filer and tech ambassador staffs.  We'll see if it's a good fit, but I'll never know unless I try.  I appreciate you time on this!  <i style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:SeaGreen;">KNHaw</i> <sup style="color:SeaGreen;">(talk)  23:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ravenswood School for Girls
Could we have some ongoing protection for this page please?Rathfelder (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ola!
I know I am not allowed to, but I have <B>boldly</b> edited your comment here. I hope that this is what you intended to write. Have a nice day, The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrongful indefinite block?
Hi, Katie!

Please excuse me for butting in, but I think a mistake may have been made here. I've examined all of the editor's edits visible in the contribution history and it's not self evident that they were made with malicious intent or that they had an appalling effect... BushelCandle (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Today he vandalized two user pages and two articles. He was warned and persisted after the final warning. He has deleted contributions that are solely promotional in nature about this golf group he insists on promoting. I could reblock him as NOTHERE but it's semantics. If he appeals the block, another admin will take a look. Katietalk 02:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very prompt and helpful response, Katie - especially when I see you're rather busy.


 * I will immediately concede that his edits on user talk pages have not been very judicious or conciliatory but this may well be caused by frustration at not being treated in a more collegiate manner in main, article space.


 * Personally, I don't read his initial motivation as "clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". If you examine, User:Mackycoff's very first edit about his beloved Golf Society in 2013, he deleted or vandalized no text but instead added
 * Admittedly this is not the most encyclopaedic and well-sourced prose and it hints that he may have a conflict of interest to declare, but this and subsequent edits in 2014 don't strike me as the obvious work of a vandal with malicious intent.
 * Rather than being intentional vandalism, this edit to another's user page may well just have been the fumbling of the obvious newbie he is rather than malicious. Can we not assume good faith unless otherwise proven?
 * Can't we educate newbies with non-malicious intent rather than savage them? Could you perhaps reduce the block period to some hours to pull him up short and indicate that he has a steep learning curve to pursue? BushelCandle (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but he's not a newbie. His first attempt to promote this group was in June 2013 with an AFC try (the deleted edits you can't see). He knows what he's doing and today he got mad and decided to act out. If his sole purpose is to promote this group, he's not here to build an encyclopedia. But since you're such a nice guy and asked so politely (as she slaps herself silly for being a softie), I reduced his block to 48 hours and I'll note that on his talk page in just a minute. Katietalk 03:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah - I didn't know about those deleted edits.
 * Thanks for taking the time to re-consider this, Katie.
 * I'll try and watch his edits now (at least while I'm awake, since I suspect our timezones are at least 9 hours apart) and will report back to you in this section if he does not learn his lessons... BushelCandle (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try and watch his edits now (at least while I'm awake, since I suspect our timezones are at least 9 hours apart) and will report back to you in this section if he does not learn his lessons... BushelCandle (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's quite depressing to have to report these edits to you, Katie.

If he had responded on his own user talk page, things might have been salvageable but I reluctantly now conclude that my advocacy was wasted on an unworthy cause. It does not matter if he is invincibly ignorant or just careless/malicious, it now seems obvious that his editing presence here does not improve our encyclopedia. You were right and I was wrong. Sorry! BushelCandle (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)