User talk:David Tornheim - Knowledge (XXG)

1222: 434:

sourced material that is being inappropriately deleted. I did see the recent AN/I that got closed without action. Nice effort. Please don't get discouraged. If I had to give one piece of advice for all the time I have spent on articles like that: Always focus most on RS both in supplying it and insisting on it. No one can ever attack you for that. I think you are doing that. So much discussion I have seen on Knowledge (XXG) on talk pages tend to end up with editors saying that other editors did something wrong. Such accusations often just escalate rather than being resolved. when it comes to AN/I, simple diffs are best. Long paragraphs will tend to be ignored. --

1690: 1551:

Nothing there. As a usual practice for me, when I see a new IP with no talk page, I try to have a welcome for multiple reasons: (1) To, of course, welcome them (2) Urge them to create an account, as it is so hard to track IP behavior (3) Encourage good editing and discourage bad editing (4) Provide a first warning for problematic edits (5) Keep a record for future editors as to whether the IP started off on the right or wrong foot. So, when I asked about putting a note there on the IP's talk page, it was mostly for (5). Make sense?

24: 2962: 2777: 2729: 2681: 2633: 2585: 2537: 2489: 2441: 2393: 2233: 2185: 2086: 1996: 1948: 1470: 1422: 1374: 551: 503: 1782:, I was so impressed, and I'm almost certain I looked at the article. I didn't remember it being too bad at the time--it's not that much worse than a number of actors--and now I regret I didn't work on it then! I'd probably jump in the fray to help out, but it looks like there are already enough eyes on it. Hope it is finished in time to get in the news. You can keep me posted if you think more eyes are need, 471:

posted is probably one-sided. The diffs, on the other-hand, are indisputable and are easy to identify and look at. If the diffs look bad, you have a case. Also, always make sure to provide simple diffs showing the editor was warned. Make multiple strong warnings before bringing someone to AN/I, and if you do go, show diffs for each of the warnings. This is one example of my successful AN/I in that area:

601: 205: 156: 691: 1338: 1314: 1634:

I do still think it is better to address the behavior issues on the editor's talk page, rather than on the article talk page. That's where I always look and probably that admin did too. I know how hard that is with IP jumpers, but I still think it is better, so that other editors know what is going

1523:

is the blocked user in question. I try to keep an eye out for logged-out editing (which he is known to do), but I was less active until the last quarter of last year, and missed the spurt of activity under this and some related IPs. If the activity were more recent, I'd have filed at SPI and sought a

1550:

about this, I wasn't questioning your judgment--I assumed you were an admin who knew what was up with the editor. But I was trying to figure out how an editor like me could find out that this came from an editor with a "bad" reputation. I looked in the usual places: (1) talk page (2) block logs.

470:

do feel the need to go to AN/I again, I suggest you spend some time looking at successful and unsuccessful posts there. It is always the diffs that make the case. I believe the senior editors who read the narratives at AN/I know there are two sides to every story, so they will assume the narrative

448:

Thank you for your advice and your reply. As I said in the ANI, it was clear civil POV pushing. With such subtle edits, I felt like all of the context had to be provided since the numerous problems being observed and addressed were more important than a successful sanction. Hopefully things are more

1630:

That's terrible. Now I understand why you struck-out the language, which I support after your explanation, especially if the goal is to protect other editors from falling into the trap of responding to the bait. If that's the case, rather than strike out the text--which, as you can see, calls more

1588:

of behavioral and language tells to combine with the IP recognition. None of the edits I've seen are recent enough to justify taking it to SPI. Without giving too much away, I'll say he tends to post on talkpages to provoke a response, watch for someone to engage, then stir the pot; that was behind

1580:

realized I hadn't named the editor on the talkpage, and I didn't want to seem like I was being coy, or that I'd lied and the situation wasn't as I'd described. My strikethrough had puzzled an admin, who also isn't familiar with the editor, which made me realize I should just go back and remove them

1007:

The problem--as I remember it--is that it is not even close to random: The likelihood of getting a notice has much to do with what day of the month the RfC is filed. I think the later in the month you file, the less likely random editors will get notice. To me that's just a bug. I don't know if

433:

Thanks for the ping. Sorry I have not gotten back to you sooner. I don't have much time for Knowledge (XXG) editing right now, and no way I can jump into the hornets' nest of those articles right now. I appreciate the work you are doing and wish you luck in making them NPOV and keeping in the

1631:

attention to it--I would be inclined to delete it or, even better, archive it. After all, experienced editors know that reporting first hand experience can be disregarded and no one but the editor who posted it is going to care if such irrelevant text is thrown in the dust bin of the talk page.

477:

Also, establishing another editor is POV-pushing is difficult. Editors at AN/I are unlikely to know the subject articles and its RS. It is unreasonable (or at minimum unrealistic) to expect editors who have not participated in the subject to read all the RS to understand if there is bias.

1638:

Do you think there is a chance that anyone else might ever use that same IP address? I don't know much about how people are able to use different IP's--I was thinking they might be at a school, university or library, and just use different computers or their friends' or family's computers.

1596:

that he won't have that same IP again, but it seems like they get randomly assigned to him within a small range, and I haven't yet seen it repeat. If you want more details to keep your own eye out, I'm happy to send you an e-mail through WP, but he avidly reads talkpages, so I'm loath

1771:, run entirely by vivacious Italians, who would often sing loudly to the Italian music and banter back and forth as the night wore on. The place was often out of control with noise and exciting energy. So sad to learn that it closed. Nothing like it anywhere I have been. :( 951:. I set you up to use Lowercase sigmabot III. One Click Archiver will also work with this setup, although I'd recommend letting the bot do its first run before using One Click Archiver. I like transparency on user talk pages, so that's a good thing to strive for :) – 1554:

As a side note, how did you know it was the same editor--because it was in the same blockrange? I didn't look at any of the edits, so maybe it is obvious from the editing record. How do you know the editor won't use the IP again? Is that their

2364: 820:, essentially all editors I have had content dispute with in the last months but totally unrelated to the article in question, in most cases, all of this after WMrapids left you a message above just a few weeks ago. 646: 2059: 2051: 1008:

you are a coder or not. I could try and dig it up. I really would like it to be changed, but doubt I have the time to make a change and support it. That's why I just left the code as is "under protest." --

1001:

Yes. Much better. Thanks. I have thought about reducing the feedback service. Mostly I just didn't have time for Knowledge (XXG) for last year or so, but now I will probably start looking at those posts.

2133:

In the lead of Tupac's page I had made some changes using professional sources that report the opinions of academics and experts but there is a user who always removes the content. What do I have to do?

1172:. It's not clear to me if these terms are all equivalent or whether there are different levels of access and different ways to apply to each. I want to be sure I apply to the correct level of access. 630:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 919:

Thank you. Where did you add the code? I looked in your contribs and don't see it there. Can you send me a link to the archiver that will be used, where I might be able to adjust the settings?

3043: 1004:

And FYI. I think there is a problem with the way the code is written for the service. I believe I looked carefully at it and discussed with the author, who was indignant about changing it.

2368: 2047: 615: 1194: 765:

article dispute, and others, you have notified several editors that have not edited the article or the talk page in a long time, without including all of the sides involved. Here

1814:

was under used, but Walsh was especially slimey and menacing. I've tried to update the article, and hope it will find its way to being approved. Hell, we had 300,000 views!

2046:

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at

256:

We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

1843:

As for Walsh, I thought he did such a great job creating that bizarre character--so characteristic of Coen Brothers' films. Those initial scenes really impressed me. --

1174:

If you would like me to spend more time reading the documentation before asking questions like this, please let me know which pages to focus on first. I will read up on

2373:

arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee,

892:

I added some code that should summon a bot within 24 hours, and will keep the most recent 40 sections on the page indefinitely. Hope that helps. Happy editing. –

2063: 1584:

I recognize the IP as a result of previous interactions with him before his indef, when he was causing trouble by IP editing while blocked; there are also a

926:. I probably started reading the documentation and my eyes glazed over. There is also a "one-click archiver." I would like to be able to use that one too. 2592: 1022:

I am a coder, but bots tend to have one owner/maintainer, so if they said no, the decision is probably final. I agree that that sounds like a bug though. –

472: 722:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 1198: 449:

calm moving forward, but if there are future issues with other users or myself, a history of such behavior has now been documented in that report.

2280:

So why has the other participant not been warned of being involved in an edit war? It's not just me. We have a difference of opinion here is all.

3014:

Hey David, do you think that you can do a new article? its called ″Siege of the Argentine embassy in Venezuela″, you can traduce it if you want.

922:

I had planned to use one of the typical archivers used by most editors on their talk pages and on the article talk pages. I believe it is the

238: 2784: 2335:

on the talk pages of users. You go to the talk page to discuss improper editing behavior, but generally after discussing content concerns.--

510: 2913:

I just noticed as I was trying to fix it. The self-revert didn't work. Yes, it was definitely an edit-conflict. Glad that is resolved! --

669: 558: 91: 2003: 719: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 57: 50: 45: 40: 929:

The reason I waited so long for archiving is for full transparency. I want others to know that I don't delete and hide warnings. --

2164:)--Advice for New Editors. A number of things written there are applicable to your situation. Sorry I did not respond earlier. -- 2941: 2905: 2888: 2876: 2837: 1840:

did pretty well. I don't know of any other films she was in before that (without looking at her entry). So I think she was new.

1689: 665: 2157: 639: 1601:

on one. His usual pattern means that even if he gets that IP assigned again, and even though he might read the discussion at

2930: 2544: 850:

Hello friend. Would you like some help setting up auto archiving for your 382 user talk page sections? I'm happy to help. –

715: 412: 393: 379: 2933: 2897: 2880: 2868: 2867:

It would be easier if you just copied the text you added, then self-reverted your entry, and readded the copied text.

2848: 2829: 1912:

Hi. For the sake of simplicity and for everyone else, feel free to use he/him pronouns when referring to me. Regards,

1100: 923: 651: 124: 1778:. I was disappointed that it was considered to be in a sad state at the time of his death. When I first saw him in 1955: 1870: 1822: 1768: 1740: 1726:}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. 1702: 948: 2496: 2093: 415:

to see how we have been improving the article and working on a new title. Any input would be greatly appreciated!

3017: 1149: 103: 2736: 1589:

my initial inclination to strike out talkpage discussion that had served no purpose other than to create drama.

1270:

Nope. And Naypta hasn't edited recently. It must be the toolforge people undisabling the bot for some reason? –

747: 2448: 974:

If you no longer use the feedback request service, that might be good to turn off, to reduce talk page spam. –

627: 1628:

I'll say he tends to post on talkpages to provoke a response, watch for someone to engage, then stir the pot;

411:

and don't think you have been notified of any of the recent discussions. If you are interested, feel free to

2318: 2285: 1280: 1235: 1211: 1032: 984: 961: 902: 860: 703: 408: 401: 824: 266: 261: 2240: 2192: 1610: 1529: 1429: 762: 1157: 878:

Yes, please. Thank you for offering! I have been meaning to ask others for the last couple of years! --

387: 1883: 1864: 1816: 1754: 1734: 1696: 478:

Edit-warring, acting against consensus, or name-calling are accusations that are more easily proven. --

1719: 823:

This is not the first time that this has happened, and you have been warned several times that further

271: 3037: 3025: 3021: 2969: 1917: 1723: 1069: 836: 3050:

to delete it, which I removed, because I do intend to work on it. Please feel free to work on it.--

1654: 609: 215: 166: 3051: 2914: 2854: 2336: 2300: 2165: 2161: 1928: 1887: 1844: 1787: 1658: 1640: 1560: 1346: 1322: 1298: 1257: 1179: 1080: 1009: 930: 879: 743: 695: 479: 435: 2987:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2797:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2749:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2701:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2653:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2605:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2557:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2509:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2461:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2413:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2253:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2205:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2106:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2016:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1968:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1490:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1442:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1394:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

623: 571:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

523:

subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

2314: 2281: 2139: 2050:. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 1292: 1271: 1247: 1226: 1202: 1139: 1023: 996: 975: 952: 914: 893: 873: 851: 454: 420: 109: 1762: 1598: 2688: 1837: 1811: 1621: 1606: 1541: 1525: 1477: 1123: 3047: 2328: 1165: 635: 276: 3018:

https://es.wikipedia.org/Sitio_de_la_embajada_de_Argentina_en_Venezuela#Asedio_a_la_embajada

3000: 2810: 2762: 2714: 2666: 2618: 2570: 2522: 2474: 2426: 2374: 2266: 2218: 2119: 2067: 2029: 1981: 1503: 1455: 1407: 1252:

As you can see in the next section below, that Yapperbot is running again. It started with

658: 584: 536: 105: 23: 2988: 2984: 2798: 2794: 2750: 2746: 2702: 2698: 2654: 2650: 2606: 2602: 2558: 2554: 2510: 2506: 2462: 2458: 2414: 2410: 2296: 2254: 2250: 2206: 2202: 2107: 2103: 2017: 2013: 1969: 1965: 1859: 1491: 1487: 1443: 1439: 1395: 1391: 1161: 1061: 638:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 631: 572: 568: 524: 520: 2896:

Another user just readded the missing edits. They may have been lost in an edit conflict.

1913: 1065: 832: 467: 2295:

Because you were he one removing content without first gaining a consensus. Please see

407:

Hello! After reviewing previous discussions, I saw that you were previously involved in

2996: 2806: 2758: 2710: 2662: 2614: 2566: 2518: 2470: 2422: 2262: 2214: 2115: 2025: 1977: 1775: 1556: 1499: 1451: 1403: 774:

in their talk page, claiming to ask about a problem restoring their edit. In this edit(

735: 580: 532: 2151: 2135: 1807: 1381: 463: 450: 430: 416: 2056:

Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes.

2975: 1802: 1779: 1119: 1115: 224: 175: 3042:

Thanks for the request. It looks like someone else already started the article:

1657:

would probably be the best solution--avoids the bother of trying to archive it. --

1225:. I'd suggest that you file it and put both our usernames so we both get access. – 600: 211: 162: 1710: 1678: 1602: 1513: 1175: 707: 683: 2331:

and I will reconsider. These issues need to be discussed on the article page,

107: 3059: 3029: 3004: 2944: 2922: 2908: 2891: 2862: 2840: 2814: 2766: 2718: 2670: 2622: 2574: 2526: 2478: 2430: 2400: 2382: 2344: 2322: 2308: 2289: 2270: 2222: 2173: 2143: 2123: 2075: 2033: 1985: 1936: 1921: 1895: 1877: 1852: 1829: 1795: 1747: 1666: 1648: 1614: 1568: 1533: 1507: 1459: 1411: 1354: 1330: 1306: 1285: 1265: 1240: 1216: 1187: 1127: 1088: 1073: 1037: 1017: 989: 966: 938: 907: 887: 865: 840: 751: 734:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

673: 588: 540: 487: 458: 443: 424: 2532:

Feedback request: Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines request for comment

2313:

And they kept re-adding it after others have removed it in the past as well.

831:), so I kindly ask you to beware of this pattern in the future. Best wishes, 2640: 1104: 1297:

I will continue with our plan. It sounds like the urgency is less now. --

947:

the config diff you're looking for. It's a variation of the code found at

1758: 642:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2983: