User talk:Iridescent

My first arbitration

My second arbitration

Archives [Jan 06‑Oct 07] [Nov 07‑May 08] [Jun 08] [Jul‑Aug 08] [Aug‑Sep 08] [Sep‑Nov 08] [Nov‑Dec 08] [Jan 09] [Feb‑Apr 09] [May‑Jul 09] [Jul‑Oct 09] [Oct 09‑Apr 10] [May‑Jul 10] [Aug‑Oct 10] [Nov 10‑Apr 11] [May 11‑Apr 13] [May 13‑Apr 15] [May‑Aug 15] [Sep 15‑Jan 16] [Feb‑Apr 16] [May‑Jul 16] [Aug‑Sep 16] [Oct‑Nov 16] [Dec 16‑Jan 17] [Feb‑May 17] [Jun‑Oct 17] [Nov 17‑Jan 18] [Feb‑Jul 18] [Jul‑Oct 18] [Nov‑Dec 18] [Jan 19] [Feb‑Apr 19] [May‑Jun 19] [Jul 19] [Aug‑Oct 19] [Nov 19‑Jan 20] [Feb‑Mar 20] [Apr‑Jul 20] [Aug‑Oct 20] [Nov‑Dec 20] [Jan 21] [Jan‑Mar 21] [Apr‑May 21] [Jun‑Aug 21] [Sep‑Dec 21] [Jan 22] [Feb‑Mar 22] [Apr‑Jul 22] [Aug‑Nov 22] [Dec 22‑]

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Skunks in the doorway

In the early days of web commerce, Silicon Valley types told stories about the problem of a skunk in the doorway: If a skunk were standing in the doorway of a brick-and-mortar store, the store employees would notice that nobody was coming inside and would investigate why people were on the sidewalk but not coming in the door. Perhaps some supportive would-be customer would find a way to let you know that there was a problem, and if anyone managed to get past the skunk, it was likely to be mentioned in a small-talk kind of way. But in e-commerce, if there was a big, obvious, solvable problem, you might not find out about it.

I am here to ask a few talk page stalkers to please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/When there is no consensus either way and tell me if there's a skunk in the doorway. It's been listed as an RFC for two and a half days now, with zero responses. Yapperbot is no longer posting Wikipedia:Feedback request service messages, but I'm not sure that's a sufficient explanation for it going completely unnoticed. I can (and plan to) post the usual sorts of announcements, but I'd appreciate it if some folks would take a look and tell me if I've made it too complicated or irritating first. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that in your signature in the RfC, it shows a timestamp but not your name. This (as you probably know) happens when you type five tildes instead of four. Maybe try re-signing with four tildes and see if that makes a difference? FWIW I think the fact that five tildes creates a name-less signature is a bug not a feature. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Double checking, I noticed the same thing; you have a date, there's even fine print provided by a userscript that you created the page, but there's no signature.

@Clayoquot FWIW I think the fact that five tildes creates a name-less signature is a bug not a feature. I've used five tildes when noting when I've edited a talk page message. However, if this bug/feature were to disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't miss it much. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact: Unsigned RFC questions were required back in the day. I'm not sure that it makes any difference, but I can add my name later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The apparent death of User:Yapperbot, and consequently the Wikipedia:Feedback request service, is likely a significant source of the non-response. I might go ask the Wikipedia:Mass message senders to deliver a generic message to the FRS names for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

After the Deluge (painting)

Hey Iri, I see you made a stealth edit in December, so you might still be skulking around. I'm thinking of running this one at TFA sometime in April; give me a shout if you've got a better idea. I see above that you've been busy lately; hope you're busy and happy. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's current on for the 27th. - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Watts – Hope stamp Jordan 1974 low res.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Brain trust: rollback rules

Hello, all, today I am looking at Wikipedia:Rollback. guideline. In particular, I'm looking at this language:

• Where the following text refers to "Standard" rollback, it means the usual form of rollback, which does not include the option to provide a custom edit summary. Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools.
• Administrators may revoke the rollback user right or impose a block in response to a user who is persistently failing to explain their reverts, regardless of the methods or means that are used to perform the actual reversions. However, they should notify or warn the editor sufficiently first, and allow the editor the time and opportunity to respond and explain their reversions before taking any action – there may be justification of which the administrator is not aware (such as reversion of edits made by a banned user). Similarly, editors who persistently engage in edit warring – especially those who have a repeated history of doing so – may have their rollback permissions revoked, regardless of the methods or means that were used to engage in the behavior. Additionally, administrators who persistently misuse rollback may have their administrator permissions revoked, and solely in order to remove the rollback user rights from them (although, in practice, such cases would require the intervention of the Arbitration Committee).

I am curious about how we came to have a software-specific set of rules, namely: that if I want to revert an unwanted non-vandalism edit without an explanatory edit summary:

• I can click the MediaWiki rollback button, and I can lose access to MediaWiki rollback for failing to provide an edit summary, but
• I can click the Twinkle rollback button, and I won't lose access to Twinkle rollback for doing exactly the same thing.

In fact, if you misuse Twinkle rollback, you can lose access to MediaWiki rollback, but not, apparently, to the tool you were actually misusing.

Most of our rules are tool-agnostic, and I wonder whether this one is also meant to be tool-agnostic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing With Twinkle rollback, there's an AGF, "neutral," and vandalism option. On top of that, Twinkle provide an opportunity to explain your edits. MediaWiki rollback has neither of these features. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the page specifies that "standard" MediaWiki rollback does not allow a custom edit summary, I assume that the edit summary is available through some non-standard method (a gadget?).

It sounds like the actual rule is: If you persistently make high-volume unexplained (and non-obvious) reverts, we'll take away whatever tools are making it easy for you to do that.

But it should IMO apply to all the tools, not just to MediaWiki rollback. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, does anyone remember how long it's been since the last admin was de-sysopped over this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Twinkle is the non-standard gadget ("non-standard" meaning, for the moment, "not being turned on by default"). It allows you to add a comment explaining the rollback; in fact, at leat with AGF rollback, it's required (not providing an edit summary stops the rollback). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)