User talk:Spolglans
Welcome to STiki!
|
Hello, Spolglans, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
Verifiability in cultural icons lists
I note that you have taken it upon yourself to include a vast number of unverified inclusions in lists. Please see discussion started at Talk:List of cultural icons of Italy. Kevin McE (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:STiki download and usage
Greetings Spolglans. I noticed you recently downloaded and used my WP:STiki tool. Kudos to you for your enthusiasm towards fighting vandalism here on the wiki. That said, some of us were a bit surprised to see your name amongst those of new STiki users -- because permission to use the tool is usually reserved for those who have, (1) special permission, (2) 1000+ edits, OR (3) the rollback right. It doesn't seem your account meets any of these criteria, and we're simply trying to understand if there is a bug in our permission checks, etc. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Spolglans. Thank you for the correction on the Candolim article. I wanted to be specific as to the "water sports" that are being conducted on that particular beach, as it is one of the few places in India that cater to the ones I mentioned. I read the articles on NPOV and Words to watch, and still think that one should be specific on the details of the activities conducted. Is there a way I can do this properly? Would attributions/citations help? I apologize for the many questions, which occur to me because I am a new user. Also, is this the right place to post this? Appreciate your help and patience .KshaunishJaini (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Spolglans. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Spolglans. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Spolglans. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
About WP:GAME
Hi Spolglans,
regarding the recent request at WP:PERM/R, at the risk of creating bad ideas, I'd like to note that Twinkle is the usual tool of choice for doing so, and can be enabled in your preferences. There is probably no better tool for practising the proper application of warning templates (see WP:WARN for a list of what Twinkle gives easy access to, on user talk pages). Properly warning reverted users is one of the main things we look for when granting, or not granting, rollback.
As you have been explicitly granted an exception for using STiki by its developer, that may be fine as well, but I'd personally recommend not to do it either. Access to STiki for your account (<1000 edits) is normally tied to the rollback permission, which you have now been explicitly denied. If I may personally ask for this, please don't use STiki while proving your suitability for the permission.
Using any other tool like Huggle after an explicit denial of the required permission will likely be seen as gaming the system and result in a block from editing rather than the desired permission. Evading restrictions, as policy sections like WP:BE and WP:REVERTBAN show, is usually something the community strongly objects to, and does not evoke sympathies.
Rollback is a trust-based permission used by experienced editors to enforce community policies; rollbackers are expected to be accountable for their actions, warn users for problematic behavior and adhere to WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Ignoring community restrictions is usually not a helpful way to gain the community's trust, which is why I personally recommend to stick to Twinkle or similar free-to-use tools for now.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well hello, ToBeFree!
- As I mentioned in the request itself - STiki is unfortunately dead (and it appears that it might be permanently so), so I don't expect that I'll be using that any more. I would, however, point out that STiki did not give me any additional powers to do anything with my account that I could not normally do - it just provided an (IMO) better interface with which to do those things.
- Looking at WP:GAME, all potential violations appear to be predicated on abusive, disruptive behaviour - something that I'd like to think that I've not partaken in. From what I understand, the restrictions that individual developers choose to impose (or not) on who uses their tooling is not a matter of Wikipedia policy, but the discretion of the developer. Working from that principle, it would seem that the exception he made would be equally as valid as the initial restrictions he placed on it.
- Out of curiosity, what's the thinking behind you requesting that I not use STiki on a personal note? It seems to me to be the case that the use of STiki to revert vandalism is no more an abuse of the system than Twinkle giving users without the actual Rollback permission a "Rollback" feature. What do you think? Is there a specific pattern to my edit history that you find objectionable, or is it more that you get 'bad vibes' from someone bypassing any form of restrictions? Feedback is always welcome!
- Everything said above notwithstanding, I understand that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a community (and one that I would like to be more involved in, at that). As stated in my original request - the reason that I requested rollback permissions is that I want to do things in a more above-board manner and participate as a member of the community, so I appreciate you taking the the time to send me such a considered message :) My plan, going forward, is to use Huggle in read-only mode to get a nice feed of potential vandalism, and then make the actual edits with Twinkle for a month, then re-request rollback rights. Does that seem reasonable?
- All the best,
- Spolglans (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah 🙂 I hadn't noticed the "it is sadly now broken" part of the request, sorry. Regarding the reason for the request, yeah, it's pretty much a "bad vibes" concern and not criticism of any of your reverts, which, though, I didn't thoroughly investigate. It's not meant to be criticism of any decision made using STiki.
- Regarding WP:GAME, I agree that the guideline is about bad-faith editing and that there has never been any bad faith on your part. The restrictions on tool usage are not always the tool developer's personal decision; WP:HG/C is built by the community, for example. I agree that if a restriction was purely the developer's personal decision, an exception granted by that developer is probably perfectly valid. With STiki, this seems to be the case. Hence, the request not to use the exception is purely a personal "bad vibes" concern from me.
- Huggle can be configured to use a "software rollback" emulation like Twinkle, eliminating the technical need for the rollback permission. However, the design of Huggle, contrary to many other tools, makes it trivial to cause widespread damage that takes hours to notice and hours to undo. My personal estimation would be 5000 bad reverts before a block happens. The amount of disruption that can be caused by improper use of that specific tool is so extreme that the community has decided to limit its usage to manually approved users via the rollback permission. Huggle, I guess, is pretty much the reason why administrators are sometimes hesitant to grant the rollback flag. Using that tool for reverts without permission would be a disaster for one's reputation, and I had a feeling it could happen if I don't say anything. I'm relieved to hear that your plan is much more reasonable; using it in read-only mode to receive a list of changes is perfectly fine and works by default. It is, furthermore, a good way to practise using Huggle without risk.
- If you ask again in a month, I'll happily be the person who adds the rollback flag. Feel free to ping me in your request. This short discussion has built valuable confidence.
- Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)