User talk:Vermont/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vermont. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Jalandhar Edit

I made a few changes on the Jalandhar page that you have reverted because you said that i did not cite any sources, owever i did not add new information, i just changed the wording of information that was already there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacelogomilkdude (talk • contribs) 13:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

STiki - please stop using it for now.

Hi Adotchar,

Unfortunately, despite several attempts to help from myself and others, you're still making basic mistakes when using STiki. Your last two edits are examples of this - this edit [1] was mostly simply refactoring (you said it didn't have a reliable source), and this one [2] was simplifying overcomplicated text and you left no rationale on the user's Talk page at all!

I'm afraid, at this point, short of taking you to AN/I (which I'd rather avoid) you've left me with little alternative but to suggest you stop using STiki for the time being - the error rate hasn't reduced. I'm also pinging MusikAnimal, samtar and Kudpung to this discussion, as I'd like a second opinion on this from the person who granted you Rollback rights (enabling use of STiki) and a couple of people who I know have been (constructively) critical of your editing in the past. Mike1901 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett has already had to remove access to the New Page Reviewer group already, and I think it's fairly certain that Rollbacker will have to go too for a while, but we'll let MusikAnimal decide on that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll stop using STiki. Those reverts were, in my opinion, fine. The one where I didn't leave a rationale in the talk page was because of the good faith revert option "General revert", which I used. The edit removed information that was useful for the article. The other edit, to Jalandhar, changed a 2011 report from being past to it being present, which is why I reverted it, as an unreliable source as there was no source saying that the data has not changed in 6 years. 2011 was 6 years ago, it's not present. Also, in that edit, the information in the paragraph talking about "second list of smart city project". No sources there, and it needs them. Those edits are fine, but per your request, I'll stop using STiki until MusikAnimal decides. The rate of good edits has improved a lot, and the oens which are being contested, the two that you are using for grounds to revoke Rollback permsisions, are not bad reverts. They're not perfect, but they're not bad. _{Adotchar| reply here} 15:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

And Graeme barlett wasn't the one who removed the new page reviewer right. You were the one who asked me to not do new page reviewing, so when the right was grandfathered to me it was removed a few minutes later without me making any patrols. _{Adotchar| reply here} 16:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I was the one to remove it, but I did so because I was reversing my action to grant it, which I should not have done, based on the earlier evaluation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If a consensus is made for me to stop using STiki, please don't remove Rollback rights altogether, I"ll just not use any Rollback programs like STiki, Huggle, etc. Though the edits in question are, in my opinion, fine, and I hope that others agree. _{Adotchar| reply here} 16:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adotchar - firstly, I'll point out that, last paragraph aside, it was me with the concerns above, not Kudpung.

As I've said before - general reverts without telling the user what they did wrong risk putting good-faith users off editing - especially when, in my view, they were right to simplify as Wikipedia isn't a technical manual. With regards to the other edit - yes, you may have a point there but that was only one small part of the edit, the rest was fine and didn't need reverting - the edit summary and talk page message implied the whole edit was unsourced, which wasn't the case. I should also point out that it's the accumulation of errors that's concerned me to the point of recommending you stop, not those edits alone. You've been doing less STiki edits over the last week, which is fine, but the time taken per edit (e.g. to put in custom messages rather than generic revert messages) & the percentage correct is what matters here in my view. Mike1901 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, just to address your request of leaving the Rollback right but not using automated tools - my personal view is that your rationale for having the rights was so these automated tools can be used - I'd be concerned that you'd be likely seen as hat-collecting if you kept the right with no intention of using the semi-automated tools you wanted the right for. Mike1901 (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. May I have permission to continue for the next week and be evaluated after that period? _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, the reason I hope to have rollback permissions is because it's very useful to revert edits not in applications like Huggle or STiki. Though my error rate may not be the best on STiki, for some reason it changes when I'm doing it the original way, which happens to be the easiest in my opinion (there's just less warning templates). _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adotchar - the point of rollback is not so there are 'less warning templates' when reverting edits generally, it's for use in case of obvious vandalism only. With regards to your other request to be given a week to prove yourself, my advice to stop isn't binding in any way so you're free to ignore it, but I'm not going to endorse you doing so at this point, ultimately the final decision rests with MusikAnimal (or another administrator). Mike1901 (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

When I said there's less warning templates it's just stating the difference between STiki and going manually to Recent Changes and using Twinkle. I know it's not the purpose of Rollback, as it was two separate statements. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I did misread that bit and you're correct. Also, for the most part you're still a very constructive editor outside of your STiki edits - I'm unsure why your accuracy falls when using semi-automated tools, though it does make me think that it's perhaps in part due to feeling you have to choose the 'nearest' template? As I advised previously, in those cases you're better off either (with the GF templates) changing the wording to be more descriptive (some of the STiki templates aren't great) or going into the web browser and doing the revert manually. Mike1901 (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, so you have more information, in the last 45 days Adotchar has had 3 formal requests for rollback declined by three different administrators (1, 2 & 3) Adotchar also asked Tony Fox about Rollback, see here and here. Then they went to Widr, (and Xaosflux) who declined one of the requests on Perm and this is the conversation. Even though Adotchar said in the last conversation and in a previous conversation that they would wait until January to ask again, four days later they ask you for rollback. - GB fan 12:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

(←) Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed your last 100 or so contributions and I do have some concerns:

Here (pointed out by Mike1901) you reverted as good-faith, claiming the change was unsourced. Frankly, I think the revision you restored is more deserving a source than the one the anon copyedited it as, which made it a more generalized statement. I don't necessarily disagree with the revert, it is subjective, but I do disagree with the rationale of the change being unsourced, when the content beforehand was even more WP:LIKELY to be challenged.
Here is another good-faith unsourced revert. The thing is however the source was already present supporting that Hughes' death was accidental... and moreover the IP removed the claim that "he was married four times", which is not supported by the source. This would have constituted a WP:BLP violation had the subject been alive (they died in 2000), and I have my doubts you looked to see if it was a BLP. The lesson here is that not every change has to include a new source, make sure the source isn't already there. You also can't do everything from the semi-automated software interface. Sometimes you have to do some quick reading and fact checking before deciding on whether or not to revert.
This needed to be removed as you did, but was not "test/vandalism" as your edit summary implied. STiki has a good-faith revert option for "talk in article", which is what this is.
Here you reverted someone's attempt to mark content as needing a source, then you actually messaged them (automated good faith warning), saying the you felt the article was better before their change. It wasn't. Verifiability is a fundamental 101 must-have for a Wikipedia. If someone questions a statement in an article by asking for a source, you don't revert and ignore, even if they did it incorrectly. The right thing would have been to change the "(source?)" to {{cn}}, as that's clearly what they intended. Or even just leave it as-is, certainly don't revert!

I still believe most of your counter-vandalism work is quite good, rather it seems you don't quite have down the best practices when it comes to dealing with good-faith contributions. Not everyone understands how it works, and you should try to be helpful. A personalized or more descriptive talk page message can make a world of a difference. While STiki offers it as a convenient template, I believe the article was better before you made that change isn't a very good message to leave users after reverting their edit, as it doesn't explain why you felt the change was inappropriate. Consider at least putting some rationale in the edit summary, which I know you can easily do in STiki – but note that you can't count on the user seeing that edit summary. You also don't need to revert every unsourced edit. First consider if it is likely to be challenged (see also WP:MINREF), and even if it is, instead of reverting you may wish to tag it with {{cn}}. There is a gray area that mostly involves judgement. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary might offer some insight.

It sounds like the biggest issue is that you are trying to do everything from the STiki interface. This is simply not feasible, nor is it with Huggle or any other software. You often have to get more hands-on and do the work manually. I agree with Mike1901 that your work outside semi-automated tools seems solid, so I will not revoke rollback rights for now. You are only around 150 mainspace edits away from having automatic STiki approval anyway (1,000 mainspace edits), and the issue I see is mostly with good-faith reverts, not blatant vandalism, which is what rollback is for. To that I will say your ability to distinguish good-faith edits from bad seems to be on-par, hence I have a hard time claiming there has been misuse of rollback. Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback is nonetheless probably still worth a read. Overall I recommend continuing to patrol as you have been, but giving very careful thought when dealing with good-faith edits. Put yourself in their shoes – how would you like to be treated? Wouldn't you like to know why the edit was inappropriate? Weight out the pros and cons – is it better to leave their slightly less ideal edit so they don't feel discouraged, and instead express to them any concerns you have? Practice this for a good while and you can slowly work your way back to use of semi-automated tools. Let it be clear that persistent misuse of rollback itself moving forward will result in it being revoked. Thanks and I do appreciate you taking this feedback to heart. We know you mean well, and just as we want you to help the newbies, we want to help you help them :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Wise words (and a very detailed analysis!) there from MusikAnimal (I've just learnt a thing or two too, didn't know the existence of WP:LIKELY which is a handy little essay) - Adotchar, he's put it far better than I could, so take his advice on board. I think his last sentence is worth emphasising - none of us are out to get you in any way, we simply want to help you to help others, in a way that doesn't put them off editing :-) I'll keep an eye on your STiki edits for a bit still (though in light of the above, I'm happy for you to resume using STiki, keeping the advice in mind) but please do feel free to proactively shout, either here with a ping or on my Talk directly, if you need advice at any point. Mike1901 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm buying a second monitor for both STiki and the browser I use to help for this (and for work, it just lines up). Thank you for your advice. Is it a good idea to use the custom warning message to say on it "please feel free to contest any of the reverts that I've made on my talk page, as I am new at this" or something like that. If yes, please give me an idea of what to put there. Thanks, _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:And you are lynching Negroes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:And you are lynching Negroes. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of American police officers killed in the line of duty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

Year in review: Looking back on 2016

News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results

Special report: German ArbCom implodes

In focus: Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

Op-ed: Operation successful, patient dead: Outreach workshops in Namibia

In the media: In brief: Coverage of gender gap initiatives, banner fundraising, and more

Featured content: The Christmas edition

Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results

Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues

Blog: Wiki Loves Monuments contest winners announced

Recent research: One study and several abstracts

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hope not Hate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hope not Hate. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.