Scottywong

	16:01, 2 January 2025 UTC [refresh] 08:01, January 2, 2025 PST [refresh]

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

New tool - editor interaction analyzer

I've created another new tool today; something I've wanted to create for awhile and had time to work on today. It still needs some cleaning up, but at this point it appears to work pretty well. Essentially, it is a twist on the popular stalker tool. You put in two editors, and it will find the pages that both editors have edited. The twist is that it sorts the results based on the minimum time between edits by both users. In other words, if both editors made an edit to the same page within a short time, that page will show up towards the top of the table.

The general idea is that when two users edit a page within a short time, chances are high that they have interacted directly with one another on that page. Therefore, instead of just returning a list of common pages edited by both users, it returns a list of pages where two users most likely had some direct interaction with one another. It's subtly different, but I think it can be a powerful tool.

Try it out at http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteract.html and let me know what you think. As always, bug reports and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thats very cool Snotty. I just loved it like your all other tools. You are doing awesome work... Yasht101 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Amazing tool! Great work! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Experimental version for up to 10 editors: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteractmulti.html ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Biotechnology in Maryland Deletion

Hi Scotty, just wanted to touch base with you before I request to have my article go to deletion review. Here was the response you gave for deletion: The result was delete. There is clearly pretty strong consensus that the article should be deleted in its current state, and so it will be deleted. However, there is also a large minority who believe that an appropriate article on this subject could be written, and that this article currently has some good information. Therefore, I'm willing to userfy this article if anyone is interested. Please contact me on my talk page to request.

Although there was some consensus in the beginning of the discussion to delete, if you scroll down you'll notice the article was significantly improved to be more neutral by JoelWhy and myself during the course of discussion. Four users supported keeping the article in its improved state (don't think everyone had a chance to re-read), which doesn't seem like a consensus call for delete. All of the original nominator's concerns were addressed. A few of the positive comments you may have missed: I've started editing out the more clearly-promotional language. There really is some excellent content in this article, and I think it's easier to edit and fix than to recreate from scratch. (JoelWhy) | I opined that the article we saw initially at AFD needed to be blown up and started over, and that's pretty much what has happened to it (Squeamish Ossifrage) | The concerns I had above have been dealt with, with a fundamental rewrite. The article could still use fine tuning, but is overall a good article that covers the topic in a significantly more neutral manner. (Dennis Brown) Thanks for your time and I hope you'll reconsider your decision. Ferddog (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC) (formerly mdbizauthor)

Is it your opinion that you're done with improving the article, and that all concerns have been addressed? Or are there still issues that need to be fixed? If it's the latter, I would suggest having the article restored to your userspace (which I'm happy to do), work on it for a bit, and then move it back into article space (or optionally take the improved article to DRV if you want to play it safe, although generally it's ok to re-create a deleted article as long as it's not substantially similar to the one that was deleted). Note that this route is also suggested by Dennis Brown towards the bottom of the deletion discussion. There's no rush; get the article back into the mainspace only when you're sure it won't be nominated for deletion again. Let me know if you'd be agreeable to this. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Scotty. I appreciate the offer to userfy, but it's my opinion that all major concerns were addressed. Did you not think the lastest version sounded more neutral or are you only allowed to look at the the discusion page and not consider the changes that were made? Could it be better? Sure, but I don't see any reason why the page should be userfied or stay deleted in it's new and improved state with the concerns addressed. Instead of going the userfy route and then rehashing the argument all over again with re-posting, think it may be best to just take my chances at DRV. Thanks again, Ferddog (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI issue

Hi -- I have a problem I hope you might be able to help with. I opened an ANI discussion regarding a user, and that user has been filling the discussion with very long posts that largely have nothing to do with the complaint and I feel are repelling uninvolved editors from commenting (due to tl;dr). I was thinking maybe the comments could be collapsed with {{hat}}, but as the user who brought the complaint, I obviously can't do that myself. I'm wondering if you can have a look and offer advice on how to handle this. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User promoting a movement. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:37, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This user has accused me of 4 things: coi, bias, false flag, and spi. Please skim here. 완젬스 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, isn't what Equaczion is proposing limited only to WP:Mediation? 완젬스 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look, the walls of text don't seem so egregious to me that they need to be collapsed. However, I think 완젬스's message would be a lot more clear if he/she strove for increased brevity. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 23:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for looking into it. I just hope this moves forward. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:58, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again--this should be the end of the issue. Can I ask another question? --shouldn't equaczion be courteous and wait for the spi to finish? Otherwise I have to defend myself with unresolved allegations of spi which I believe will exonerate me from the accuser. This is my first time being stringed up at WP:ANI like a pinata. It's 1-sided and Equaczion has nothing to lose in trying to get me topic banned. If he succeeds, that makes him happy, and even if he fails, I am now sitting/defending myself for the 5th consecutive hour hitting f5 repeatedly on the ANI page as well as his contributions page. He has no empathy! (or at least none that I can detect) 완젬스 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, this ANI discussion is not about SPI. Someone else thought it prudent to open an SPI case as a result, but whatever its results, I still feel a topic ban is in order. Apologies for the back-and-forth on your talk page Scotty. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:09, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Quit beating a dead horse already, 완젬스 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A realization

It was not until recently that I noticed your username is "Scottywong". I had always thought it to be "Snottywong" (with an 'n' instead of a 'c'). Master&Expert (Talk) 20:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was mere minutes after posting this that I checked to see if you had changed your username, when I realized that you were indeed once known as "Snottywong". My apologies for the misconception. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletionist

Well, now, the real Scottywong comes out, deleting such valuable content as Putting Your Football Manager Achievements on Your CV. We're on to you, pal. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Crap! I thought no one would notice... ;) ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And another hapless admin takes the fall for me! MUHAHAHAHAHA Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Template loops

FYI, I made this edit to remove the loop warning. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone added a category directly again. Since you stopped the bot from listing the log pages, this wasn't a huge deal - but now it tried to list itself. I've fixed the category issue (for now) and removed the loop, but this'll happen again. I've got a thought, and I don't know if this would work - what if you had the bot exclude itself from the "Requiring Attention" page, but also had it list itself at the User:Snotbot/AfD report page? This way we see that there is a problem (and can track it), but it doesn't break the Requiring Attention list. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe better would be for the bot to look for [[Category:AfD debates]] in the page text of each AfD, and announce that at User:Snotbot/AfD report. That way we won't have to manually look through every AfD to see which one is the culprit. I'll also make sure to prevent the bot from making template loops on the User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention page. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 15:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That'd be even better, and it would catch the debates that don't make it to the Requiring Attention log. Good call. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of 68.87.42.110

Hi Scotty. Can I just ask you a quick question about this block? I received a complaint via email as it's a shared corporate IP belonging to Comcast and when I check, I'm actually not seeing any abuse behind it. There are some edits via anons - all from different computers - and one long-term editor, but no new accounts created. What I'm seeing is edits to random telecomms articles, plus one or two vandalistic edits but nothing really concrete - Alison ^❤ 20:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication that the email may have originated from User:Thekohser (i.e. similar name or email address)? I'm reasonably sure that the IP is not shared by more than one person. However, you'd know better than I, since you're a checkuser, so if you believe there are legitimate non-blocked anons trying to edit from that IP, please feel free to unblock it. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, it did originate from him. And yes, it's shared. A lot of the anon edits are different people, for starters, but I'm confident that the aforementioned banned editor isn't using it. The overall issue (and I'm trying to view this dispassionately, step back, and just do my job) is that the block message can be linked easily to his RL name thus his colleagues will link this recent block directly to him. And that would be unfair, especially as he isn't actually using it - Alison ^❤

Hmm. Well, the block log for that IP already mentions his username from previous blocks. And, if he isn't trying to edit WP using that IP address, then how would he have even realized that it had been blocked? Something doesn't add up... ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

He'd certainly have found out when one of his colleagues walked into his office to tell him that his identity is associated with their corporate IP being blocked. And I count at least 4 different anons editing constructively on there :/ - Alison ^❤ 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I just find it odd that it's a problem all of a sudden. This IP has been blocked for years at a time, with the user's name in the block log. Would it suffice to re-block the IP without using the user's name in the block description? Without seeing the email, I find it difficult to believe that this isn't simply a banned user trying to get their work IP unblocked so they can continue occasionally editing WP. However, again, being the checkuser you have far more information than I do, and so if you decide to unblock this user I will trust you are making the right decision. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure he's paid-editing now, coz that's how he rolls, though I've not seen his socks in some time. Put it this way, he'd be crazy to edit from that IP right now because I'll be checking it and I *will* nail those account (and he knows it). Can you elaborate on why exactly you chose to block it, given that there's no socking or excess vandalism going on right now? The previous unblocks in the log clearly show it to be a shared IP - Alison ^❤ 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a long story. I'll unblock as it seems you're working from better info than me, and you're already keeping an eye on the IP. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 13:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 142 and others

Thanks for your closing of the MMA AfD's. You mentioned in the the one on UFC 142 about starting a RfC, are you be willing to help draft the question and push this through as none of the mma fans seem to want to accept anything other than every UFC MMA event is just notable ? Mtking ^(edits) 05:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well I'll admit I know next to nothing about MMA, so I wouldn't be much use for coming up with sensible notability guidelines. If you come up with something, I'd be willing to proofread it before it goes live and comment on it. For what it's worth, I'd suggest finding some reasonable editors from the most relevant wikiproject to collaborate with, rather than going it alone. Not only will you have more diverse ideas, but it'll look better too. The recent spurt of AfD's will naturally make you appear non-neutral to your detractors. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, I saw the external link you posted to ANI. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 13:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

KW talk page access

The ANI thread was closed rather quickly, so I'll post here: I would have been happier with a reminder that talk page access is for appealing blocks, and deny access if the abuse continues. I don't feel strongly enough to make the change myself. (I had been following KW's talk page, and confess that the summary here is more extensive that I had thought.) Would you consider returning talk page access in a couple of days, with a short leash? I realize that KW is experienced enough to know how to appeal blocks without talk page access, but some of the posts on the talk page are legitimate uses of the talk page, IMO.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Should KW have needed such a reminder, given that his talk page access had to be revoked during his last block as well, for exactly the same reason? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. I'll withdraw the request. My main concern is that we have an editor who appears to be angry. One who hasn't yet accepted that the majority of the reason is his own actions. I'd like to make sure that, as much as possible, we don't provide any appearance of Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. I thought the first block was on the long side, I was happy to see it reduced. I saw the notice of talk page access before seeing the ANI thread, and my first reaction is that it was an over-reaction. However, having seen the summary, I feel differently and have a better understanding of the rationale. My guess is that KW feels unfairly set upon, I'd just like to be careful that we do not do anything to make that feeling justified.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern and understanding. KW is well aware of the reality of the situation, and as Demiurge1000 mentioned, he was informed during his last block about how a user talk page is not to be used during a block (although if I remember correctly, his talk page was protected last time rather than talk page access revoked for some reason). I think it's for the best. KW needs to realize that we're serious, and that if he doesn't make an effort to be civil, he will eventually be banned. This block should serve as a preview for what that ban will be like. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment on the AfD after it's closure

Sorry for that, the AfD was closed while I was already putting together that response to what I felt was an attack or assumption upon myself there. That addition following the closing of the AfD one of an error through simultaneous contribution, my appologies. Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it looks like you spent a lot of time crafting that message, so there's no sense in deleting it. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Archives - sacrosanct for those that agree with you?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You have defended the premature archiving of the section regarding your placed block by removing the comments of other users. However, you have not reverted this. Please revert that substantial change to the section, or restore the other substantial change to the section. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break. I'm not a moron. Fixing a minor formatting issue is not the same as advancing the conversation with new comments. I didn't archive the thread, if you don't like that it's archived, complain to the person who archived it. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 15:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have. You are defending the archiving, but somehow you are not defending it from someone correcting their evidence such that it's not totally clear that you didn't review each of the bullet points. Revert the interim modification to the evidence provided, or make it clear that the evidence was modified post action, post archiving. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Scottywong

Hey, I don't mind refactoring my comment, but I put the comment there for a reason. Let's try and follow Talk Page Guidelines here. I'm not a fan of Sarek. Many times I've seen him aggressively pursue an editor, including myself, for something that most editors would try and work out. I agree that KW was mouthing off, but I don't see the point in becoming a Talk Page Stalker and making sure not one more word is uttered. It just seems like a lot of effort was expended by him in order to shut up some guy who didn't agree with him. Your intentions might be pure, but it seems like a big conflict of interest for the guy who is the _target of scorn, and looking over the list that Sarek compiled, over half were clearly directly pointed at his actions in the role of an administrator. Even Sarek in his opening admits that there is justifiable venting, but we never bother to define that, and simply go after the perp. Just seems like the block is being used to punish the person for complaining about the way tools were used, rather than really about protecting Wikipedia. But hey who knows. -- Avanu (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not a talk page, therefore I'm not sure how Talk Page Guidelines apply. The section was archived, so continuing to comment outside of the archives doesn't make sense. Either start a new section or appeal to the editor who archived it. In any case, I have unarchived the section and restored your comments, as it's clear that some users would like to continue discussing. I strongly disagree that KW's talk page looks like the talk page of a user who is appealing a block as opposed to uncontrollable ranting. Anyway, feel free to continue the discussion at ANI if you feel the need. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume the same protocols on discussion apply to AN/I as to other discussion pages, sorry for the imprecise use of the guideline. And no, I don't care for a drawn out discussion on it, I suppose I'm just saying in an argument, usually we walk away and let the other person fume and rant and then come back later and work together. It seems counterproductive to follow the person and start making notes of all their comments when it is just as easy to walk away and let them have time to come to terms with their emotions. That's why I kind of think Sarek makes these things worse because he won't simply engage the person in a positive way. I'm sure this will happen again and we'll be in the same boat, because its happened before too. But I won't labor the point any longer. Have a great day, and hope to see you while editing sometime. -- Avanu (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

your closing statements

Concerning your closing statements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Márquez (2nd nomination). It is not Wikipedia:Canvassing to contact people who participated in a previous AFD. The last AFD closed on 18 December 2011 and the new one was started on 15 April 2012. If you are going to start the same AFD over again, then everyone who participated in it just months before should be told. Suggesting that people not be told if/when this same article goes to AFD again, is wrong. Watchlists get too crowded to keep track of everything on them, and obviously anyone who wanted to participate in a previous AFD will want to participate in future ones. That is evidence by the fact of them all showing up. Dream Focus 17:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My point is that it's unhelpful. If 10 people have a contentious discussion in December, what is the point of inviting all of them back four months later to have the same contentious discussion when you already know that none of them have changed their mind? The point of AfD is to come to a conclusion about the fate of an article, not to have discussions for the sake of discussion. Getting some different viewpoints advances the discussion, getting the same viewpoints advances nothing. In my view, notifying the participants of a previous AfD (especially when you know it was contentious and resulted in no consensus) is borderline gaming the system, since you are all but guaranteeing another no consensus (a.k.a. default to keep) closure. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Its unhelpful to have endless reruns for AFDs, where people who don't get the results they want, take turns nominating it endlessly hoping for a change. Its gaming the system to ignore the consensus of past AFDs, ignoring what everyone has previous said, and trying to start over again, hoping to get a different result. Dream Focus 17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)