Um einen Abschnitt dieser Seite zu verlinken, klicke im Inhaltsverzeichnis auf den Abschnitt und kopiere dann Seitenname und Abschnittsüberschrift aus der Adresszeile deines Browsers, beispielsweise
Du hast in der "Pälzisch Wikipedia" die Änderung einer Ip wieder herausgenommen.
Inhaltlich war der Zusatz der IP absolut korrekt, sprachlich war er absolut einwandtfrei. Daß die Formulierung nicht unbedingt enzyklopädisch war, ist sicher ein Grund, sie zu verbessern, keinesfals aber, sie zu entfernen! Wir sind im Aufbau und für jeden Mitarbeiter dankbar. Potentielle Mitarbeiter, die sich in ersten vorsichtigen Schritten als IP versuchen, auf diese Weise vor den Kopf zu stoßen, ist in keiner Weise gerechtfertigt. Als Mitarbeiter des Small Wiki Monitoring Team solltest Du das eigentlich wissen und auch in der Lage sein, zwischen Vandalismus und unbeholfenen, an sich aber richtigen Beiträgen zu unterscheiden. Sei bitte so freundlich und berücksichtige das bei weiteren Exkursionen in die Pälzisch Wikipedia. -- Skipper Michael - Diskussion18:54, 13. Jul. 2010 (CEST)
Das war wohl definitiv ein Fehler meinerseits... Ich hätte hier wohl entweder einfach die Finger von lassen sollen (wie ich dass bei nicht Vandalismus eigentlich immer mache) oder lediglich die Sprache verbessern... sorry - Hoo man (Diskussion) 22:39, 13. Jul. 2010 (CEST)
Ich wollte dich eh gerade benachrichtigen, ich habe deinen Edit rückgängig gemacht, da erstens die .svg Datei als Vorschaubild (das was im Artikel angezeigt wird) höchstens unwesentlich größer ist als das Vorschaubild der .jpg Datei und zweitens ich der Meinung bin, dass die .svg Datei vom Aussehen her in Ordnung ist. Wobei sie bei näherer Betrachtung weniger Details hat, weshalb ich kein Problem damit hätte wenn du das wieder rückgängig machst. - Hoo man (Diskussion) 23:05, 28. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
Also, ein Mitgleid des SWMT („Sockpuppen für Wikihoundung von Menschen durch Trolling“) nennt mir einen Vandal um ein Bild mit weniger Detail zurück zu setzen. Der Revert ist kein Problem. aber („dich eh gerade benachrichtigen“) ein E-Mail mit Bedrohungen gegen meinen Vater, ist nicht freundlich. Bitte, eine öffentliche Diskussion ohne Hilfe von IRC-Freunde. --Erik Warmelink00:31, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
You're a bit confused, aren't you? Where did he call you a vandal? Here not. „Dich eh gerade benachrichtigen“ does not mean that he wants to write a mail with threats against your father. How did you assume that? Or has he in fact written a mail to your father? What was written in it? But I cannot imagine that it contained real threats. How did you assume that we were IRC friends when he just tried to remove an error of my user page? To prevent any user to take part in public discussions seems a bit silly to me. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Disk., Bew.) 11:42, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST) P. S.: Nice interpretation of SWMT ;o) although it's signification is not entirely clear.
Compared to your "Randy in Boise" action, just a bit confused. They called me a vandal because they used Hilfe:Wiederherstellen („Der primäre Zweck des Wiederherstellens ist, Vandalismus zu beheben“). They did write me an email, it wasn't released under CC, but there was „Galgenman“ in it. I don't understand „How did you assume“, did you mean „Why did you assume“? Yes it's silly, but trying to silence people who won't write under a pseudonym, seems the prime goal of the SWMT (they attack IP-users and people who use their real name). --Erik Warmelink14:11, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
Thats not true, I've never written an email, to either you or your father. "Ich wollte dich eh gerade benachrichtigen" meant that I wanted to leave you a message on your user talk page (but you were faster).
(edit conflict) Well, I can't be sure that you are also the person who signed the email with „Hoo Man“. After all, the email was sent after we talked on this public webpage, and (as usual) it was sent through an open proxy (213.6.160.77 is a nice choice considering my blocks at de.wikipedia.org), but it was sent to the email address I gave to wikipedia.org. --Erik Warmelink14:34, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
And I'm not calling you a vandal, cause rollback can be used for non vandalism reverts too (If you leave a message on a talk page and I wanted to do that) - Hoo man (Diskussion) 14:21, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
It was not my Randy from Boise action because that action was requested by ArbCom member and bureaucrat in accordance with enwiki's and metawiki's oversight policies. First inquire about something before parroting it. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Disk., Bew.) 14:29, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
If an ArbCom member and bureaucrat would ask you to hop around on one leg whistling Yankee Doodle and you did, you would look silly, not the Am/b. I find it hard to believe (considering your interest in Greek-Roman mythology) that you had never heard of the sword-wielding skeletons who fought in the Peloponnesian War. You could have inquired before you acted on hearsay (even if it was hearsay by an Am/b). You used the powers entrusted to you, I don't see a policy which would give you the right to use those powers in this case. --Erik Warmelink21:57, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
“Stewards may perform local oversighting in emergencies, during crosswiki oversighting, or if there are no local oversighters available” … the first and second fitted in that situation in which you did not take part in. I checked the connection between that given user and that name Randy; and if only a relative is able to connect them the information has to be removed. Privacy issues are emergency situation esp. when people got stalked like they were here, no local oversight reacted for more than an hour, two trusted user asked me to check that case and I decided how I decided. I still think that it's better to do a revertable action to prevent abuse of private information. But it's not needed to discuss that again, AUSC confirmed my explanation, community confirmed me during last steward confirmation. So that issue should be shelved. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Disk., Bew.) 02:28, 30. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
I don't think it was an emergency, but I agree with "it's better to do a revertable action". Could you react about that Galgeman below; it's somewhat disingenuous to ask questions and then ignore the answers? Could you retract "But I cannot imagine that it contained real threats", or could you at least admit that your imagination is somewhat lacking? --Erik Warmelink04:26, 30. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
Oops (spelling reforms): there was "Galgeman" not "Galge›»n«‹man" in the email. And note that while I made it public that 20 years ago my parents lived in Nijverdal, I did not disclose Ga›»«‹ge›»l«‹man (one of the quarters of Nijverdal) --Erik Warmelink21:57, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
editconflict Die Freche Bezeichnung für das SWMT team würde bei mir sofort einen blocken wegen unfletigen Benehmens zur Folge haben. Das kann man schon als Beleidung sehen, da ich auch selber da mit mache. Poste das doch bitte nochmal auf einem Wiki wo ich adminrechte habe... Ach und ja, wer im Glashaus sitzt sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen, vor allem nicht bei den Sperren gegen dich auf commons, enwiki und nlwiki (SUL). Also Sockenpuppen haben bei mir einen ganz schlechten Standard. -Barras11:47, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
This sounds like you imply that Pathoschild is a spammer?? He creates synchronized global pages for active Wikipedians. You imply that using revert one of your edits makes you a vandal? Seriously not. But your comments and blocks across different wmf wikis imply that you disrupt projects which warrants to block you, maybe to global lock you. -Barras14:34, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
No, I don't imply that a rollback by someone else makes me a vandal; the rollbacker implies that my edit was vandalism.
About the blocks on several projects, it can also mean that I am wikihounded at several projects. For example, do you and DerHexer really think that Hoo Man can't defend theirself in a discussion? That it is necessary to discuss three vs. one? Four vs. one if Hoo Man (and/or you, and/or DerHexer) didn't sent that threat by email.
About the global lock, „To prevent any user to take part in public discussions seems a bit silly to me“. Even when it is three to one, you seem to need blocks because of the lack of arguments. --Erik Warmelink21:57, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
FWIW, the userpages and subpages (vector.js/css) make the work for some people easier. Those people you mentioned (Mentifisto, Quentitiv57, Shanel, etc) belong to the SWMT team and hold either global rollback, sysop or steward rights. Furthermore, all those people are on IRC and watch small wikis for vandalism. If they do something wrong, a userpage on the wiki with a note where to contact them is really helpful. I, myself, have such a page to ensure that when I edit on wikis I'm normally not active give the local community a way to contact me. People who get their pages created by Abigor or Pathoschild are highly trusted wikimedians who know why they request the page creation. Furthermore, I fail to see why you have a problem with people who get their pages created this way by a bot. Rollback does not imply that an edit was/is vandalism as long as the rollbacker has the intention/does leave the person he rolled back a message. All you have written here until now, would result on any of my home projects in a block for disruption, especially the last sentence which basically says that I abuse my tools. As a side note, I only joined the discussion for your unqualified, trolling like comment about the SWMT (Small wiki monitoring team). -Barras22:51, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
What work did people like Mentifisto, Quentitiv57, Shanel, etc do on fo.wiktionary? They don't edit there, the edit by SaraLeeUK was reverted by the local community. Who, outside other members of their leet IRC channels, trusts them highly? I have a problem with the page creations because I monitor some small wikis, and those scent marks clutter the logs. If you do use your tools to block people who say that you abuse your tools when you block critics only for being critical to Your Pseudonymous Internet Relay Chat Using Highness, Oversighter, Checkuser, Bureaucrat and Administrator on Simple.Wikipedia.Org et cetera, et cetera, then you do abuse your tools. You didn't get the tools to protect your tender feelings, you got them to protect the encyclopedia. If you only joined because of my comment, how did you find it? Or were you warned outside wikipedia that it was only two (or three) to one? --Erik Warmelink02:34, 30. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
Erik Warmelink, when I clicked on "preview" it told me, that I have new messages on my talk page and it was you, so I replied on my talk page. Further I have to say, that this discussion is totally pointless and far away from topic. You do not seem to care about the topic anymore (you haven't even mentioned it after your first reply). The only thing you did since then is arguing... please get back to topic or stop "discussing" - Hoo man (Diskussion) 23:27, 29. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
Hoo man, why didn't you save it? Why didn't you compare the images before you rolled back? Why do you state that I don't seem to care about the topic ("you haven't even mentioned it after your first reply") 90 minutes after I added the disputed images? --Erik Warmelink01:40, 30. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
I compared the images before the revert, but as mentioned above, If you say that the .jpg looks better in your opinion, you can feel free to undo my edit. I usually prefer vector graphics and the argument with the file size isn't really strong but If you really want, you can undo. Further I have to say that this is the end of this discussions, you can now freely decide what to do with the image. - Hoo man (Diskussion) 15:03, 30. Aug. 2010 (CEST)
Did you compare the stones; the red one on the left, for example? Do you really believe that leaving out that stone is just a missing detail? In my opinion, you should undo your edit.
But, also, I should not be threatened in email because I dared to question the rollback of an SWMT pseudonym. If you, the Hoo Man of the email threat (note the capitalization of "Man"), DerHexer and Barras are four different people, it is four to one. And even then, Barras needs to threaten with blocks.
