This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times. And the last admin blocked by Jimbo. The LAST. Don't trifle with her. |
Userbox barnstar
Awarded by DHeyward
10:19, 2 September 2015
Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
- Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
- Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi
- A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
- AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
- Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
- The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.
- A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
- Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
- A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Deletion of Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok
Hi User:Bishonen, May I ask why did you delete the above page without confirming that the unambiguous infringement had been fixed based on the COPYVIOS? see COPYVIOS results of less than 24% and I had posted a notice on to contest the infringement based on the changes? Avataron (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like the COPYVIO results are not showing because the page had been deleted. Thankfully I had archived that page using screenshots. Let me know if you need that for verifications. Avataron (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- It was marked as a copyright violation by Diannaa, one of our most experienced admins with regard to copyright. I've pinged her in the hope that she'll take a look at your complaint. Meanwhile, do you really not understand how disruptive it is to promptly recreate the article under a slightly different name, Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok, just three minutes after you posted here, without waiting for a response? That's simply a trick, and I don't see how you can have thought it was a proper or honest thing to do. You are creating a lot of work for a lot of people. I have blocked you to slow you down. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC).
Wayne Dupree again
I am baffled why Wikipedia would remove the Wayne Dupree page. It appears very much like partisan targeting to me. This is the person that removed the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.245.208 (talk • contribs)
- (I've moved your post to the bottom of the page, where new posts are meant to go.) Hi. Yes, I'm the administrator who deleted the page. I closed (=summarized) this discussion (please click on the link and read it), and found the consensus to be "delete". That's how it works: somebody can nominate a page for deletion because they don't think the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards, then other people discuss it, then an admin makes the call. Anybody can create an article, and if we didn't have some kind of procedure for assessing notability, we'd drown in them. Anyway, my own opinion doesn't come into it, I just summarize. Please note that if a person is found to be "not notable", it does not mean that we're calling that person unimportant! It merely means that there's not enough support in reliable independent sources to support notability as Wikipedia defines it. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC).
- I read no partisan commentary from any of the commenters during the discussion. Please quote them, if they exist. This looks like a tactic to divert attention from the fact that Dupree is not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Tapered (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The article is on deletion review, now, Tapered, in case you want to comment there. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commentariat Tapered (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
"The section above"
Thanks you for your note on my user page. Frankly, I was surprised at the ban. This relatively brief interaction is our first ever (that I can recall at least).
- It started just before when we had both contributed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#user:184.145.42.19 Discussion after closure when the defendant user:184.145.42.19 popped in to express disgust that no one had told him the ANI had been re-opened. BMK was the one who had re-opened the ANI without notifying the defendant, and I had since been on the defendants talk page, and didn't notice that he hadn't been notified.
- So I replied to the defendant to say that they should have been notified by BMK or myself and that I'm sorry. [1]
- BMK then came and swore at the defendant (he seemed bothered that he had the temerity to return) and then told me "Don't ever apologize for me again"[2] Which seemed odd, as I put the blame on lack of notification on both BMK and myself, and then said I apologise instead of We apologise.
- So I called BMK on both things and asked him to now apologize to both of us.[3]
- Meamwhile, he's simultaneously come to my talk page, and made a similar comment about not apologize for him. And asked about my background, noting my paltry experience, lack of edit history, concluding that I shouldn't be on ANI.[4]
- I was a bit taken aback by his tone, but left what I thought was a civil reply, to which he replied saying he was being civil but blunt.[5]
- So I bluntly told him what he'd done wrong. My second ever edit on his talk page.[6]
- And he said I had clearly apologized for him (how?), misquoted me (why?), asked me to stay off his talk page,[7] and posted that "ban" notice on my page.[8]
And that's all there ever was between us.
He can "ban" me if he wants to; that's fine. My objection was he referred to this as a "ban" and said that "I am required to by Wikipedia policy." He over-exaggerated it a bit, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate. Instead of just politely asking me to stay off his page he chose to use words that were wikilawyering. (I've since observed, he's "banned" a lot of people - so many he even has a template[9] at the bottom. He calls it 'Bunting for a home run!)
You commented about:
- WP:COMMONSENSE - I agree. He has every right to ask me. But WP:COMMONSENSE is an essay, not policy.
- wikilawyering - I'm guilty as charged. One of my weaknesses is that I'm not very good at not doing the same thing back to someone after they do it to me. Sometimes I just use their own words a bit and post it back. He wikilawyered, so then I did too. I shouldn't do that.
- Obviously "banned" means you're not welcome there - yes. But the word "ban" has a meanings in Wikipedia. He was wikilawyering.
- I'm not surprised BMK warns you off his page when you post offensive psychobabble - look at my previous edits. There was not one thing like that previously. What can I say - I'm not perfect. And I think he'd been rather incivil to me - this was my first (and last) incivility.
- supercilious advice about "improving the encyclopedia" - That was just me acknowledging his own comment using the same phrase from his first post to me at[10] - I'm glad you think it's supercilious, because that's what I thought too actually when he wrote it!
- Do you repost those things here on your own page because you're so proud of them?- One, I wanted a record of it. Two, yeah, I was kind of proud of a couple of things there - particularly reusing his own supercilious language!
- Incidentally, what's this about your "policy" stated at the top of your talkpage - It is my policy. I've worked that way for over a decade. As you probably recall there was a lot more of that back in the day, before notifications, and these new-fangled pings. I was also reusing his word "policy". Bad nfitz.
- that requires you to respond on the other person's page - "requires" was wikilawyering, guilty as charged. I was using his made-up policy against him.
- How can a principle you made up yourself require you to do anything? - guilty as charged
- does it really require you to repost the other person's post on theirs, as if they had written it there, which is quite confusing? - I've always done that. Look at my edit history. So I didn't do that out of spite or anything. I started to do it, because back when everyone posted replies on each others pages, you couldn't follow the conversation after a while. So I just got in the habit of copying the thing I was replying to, to be polite and clear. To tell the truth, with all the pinging and notification these days, I've been thinking that my "policy" is getting a bit stale, and perhaps I should just do it the way everyone else seems to do it now.
- you repost your own post here, supposedly to illustrate "long-term issues of Beyond My Ken", leaving your "principle" full of holes. - I don't normally do that.
- Leave BMK alone. I don't only mean don't post on his page, I also mean don't troll him on yours or elsewhere. - I will leave him alone. I made that very clear in my post. You'll note that when I copied it to my page, I removed the ping that was originally there, so that I didn't inadvertently ping him. No guarantees that in 5 or 10 years I might not do it by accident in a discussion - because honestly, I forget things over time. I have no intention of trolling him. I admit my parting shot was a bit trollish (I'm not perfect).
Thanks again for your comments, and the chance to defend myself (if you've read this far). I hope that after reading my explanation, that you'll at least see where I was coming from, if you can't forgive me. No hard feelings. Nfitz (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. You both lost your tempers. But you seem to have read BMK's post hastily. Either that, or you quote him in a misleading way. "My objection was he referred to this as a "ban" and said that "I am required to by Wikipedia policy."" You seem to be suggesting, by this partial quoting, that he said he was required by policy to ban you? Or maybe that you were required to respect his ban? Would that be why you say he was wikilawyering, and that's why you did the same thing back, "using his made-up policy against him"? Well, he wasn't; he never said or implied you were required by policy to respect his ban. There was no made-up policy for you to parody. He was telling you to stay off his page unless you were required by Wikipedia policy to post there. You know, such as, you're supposed to alert him to having mentioned him on ANI.
- You say "One of my weaknesses is that I'm not very good at not doing the same thing back to someone after they do it to me... I shouldn't do that." No, really not, especially if they didn't. I'll say no more about it. But, while I don't particularly want any quarrel to take off here on my page, I'm pinging BMK for information, if he cares. Not sure why you talk about me forgiving you — nothing to forgive, so don't worry about that. Bishonen | talk 11:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- PS: "BMK then came and swore at the defendant"? Oh, come on, now! Context! Did you not notice the post he was responding to, and quoting? It's right there in the same diff. Not that I think swearing is so heinous in any case. But doing it as a quote back to somebody? I'd expect you to approve, since it's so much what you do yourself. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- Actually, I never lost my temper. I was only bemused by his unfriendliness when he "banned" me. I was quite civil in everything I wrote until then. I get the impression he's someone who isn't good at handling being told they are wrong - especially when they are in the wrong. And his reaction is to then simply try and eliminate the presence of the person who did that, than simply confront the issue. So, he's wrong ... everyone's wrong. Apologize and move on.
- PS: "BMK then came and swore at the defendant"? Oh, come on, now! Context! Did you not notice the post he was responding to, and quoting? It's right there in the same diff. Not that I think swearing is so heinous in any case. But doing it as a quote back to somebody? I'd expect you to approve, since it's so much what you do yourself. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- And speaking of being wrong ... I did indeed misread the bit about policy in his post - odd, I read that more than once. Either way, the whole thing was supercilious puffery - which I don't think belongs anywhere near the project. And it's pretty easy to see (for example when you search for the words in his template), that this has come up again and again in the past.
- Swearing at the defendant. Yes, he was doing the same thing I do (the irony) - I'm guilty as charged there. Much of what I reacted to, is that he was the one who had failed to notify the defendant that the discussion was re-opened, and not failed to take responsibility for it, but in the very same edit [11] also attacked me for apologizing for it, claiming I had apologized for him. Which I most certainly had not, as others have noted[12]. If he hadn't simultaneously attacked me, I doubt I'd have responded at all. I think there's a major WP:AGF failure in his assumption that I apologized for him. In retrospect, I probably did lose my temper a bit when I made my response[13], but I think I remained civil, but annoyed.Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Part of this, is that I (like many other peons here) feel I've been unfairly treated by a few admins in the past - guilty until proven innocent and all that. Clear failures of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. It's almost like some admins feel that an important pillar here WP:5P4 doesn't apply to them (the same ones often seem to think that WP:5P5 doesn't exist either) - at least when dealing with lowly users. So when I see others being picked on (even if they do deserve it sometimes), or I detect that kind of attitude, I speak up. Which then makes me a target with someone who has that type of belief. (I'm not referring to BMK here, I'm thinking of older experiences - perhaps I misread him). Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm feeling disappointed you didn't respond to me here or say something on my talk page, but instead felt a need to have a go at me at [14]. I'd have thought that was generally an inappropriate comment for an ANI thread and should have been elsewhere (though I'm having problems finding the guidelines for ANI discussions - I'd appreciate if you'd point me to them). Obviously you feel I'm overlinking, though there's nothing about overlinking for talk pages on either WP:Overlink or WP:MOS. I don't think I've shown any unwillingness or inability to civilly (and I thought friendly) discuss my skills. Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Part of this, is that I (like many other peons here) feel I've been unfairly treated by a few admins in the past - guilty until proven innocent and all that. Clear failures of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. It's almost like some admins feel that an important pillar here WP:5P4 doesn't apply to them (the same ones often seem to think that WP:5P5 doesn't exist either) - at least when dealing with lowly users. So when I see others being picked on (even if they do deserve it sometimes), or I detect that kind of attitude, I speak up. Which then makes me a target with someone who has that type of belief. (I'm not referring to BMK here, I'm thinking of older experiences - perhaps I misread him). Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I feel you're overlinking? No, I feel you're swarming all over the place. Do you realize how many times your name currently appears on the ANI page? Also, I feel you're sharing too much trite wisdom there, and telling people things they already know.. You're focusing on an unimportant detail in my post (the linking). There's nothing about linking on talkpages in MOS, really? What a lot of guidelines you know. What you're by contrast ignoring, both in your ANI response and here, is my main point: that your finger-wagging is unlikely to have a good effect on the people you direct it at, probably because they're mostly grownups. A bad effect, more like. Resentment. Aren't you interested in the effect? I'm not aware of any "guidelines for ANI discussions". We don't have every last thing codified. ANI etiquette is a loose baggy work in progress, like all the other traditions and practices here. I used ANI to comment on your posting on ANI because I thought it more direct, to comment right below an example of the kind of post I was objecting to. But YMMV; TJW used your page for the same purpose; and you were equally defensive about that, and wanted to know about the guidance and styleguide for who should contribute on ANI and how. Who do you see writing these styleguides? There are none; we're all on our own when it comes to writing and acting appropriately. But I'll take a shot at a short ANI styleguide for you, if you think it'll help:
Look in thy heart and write; introspect about your own motives; cogitate about the effect your post may/can/will/won't have on others; and be open and sensitive to the culture that's all around you.
Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 01:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC).- I don't feel I've been defensive with TJW - I've asked him for help in understanding where his objections are, so I don't repeat, and he won't (can't?) provide any. I'm scratching my head about who YMMV is. Garchy popped in, but I pretty much agreed with him. I'm missing something about MOS, as I'm not seeing much about talk pages at all, let alone linking. Finger wagging (goes back to ANI to read my post) ... you mean the "Go talk it out nicely. Don't WP:BITE and be WP:CIVIL. part of it". Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong - they are grownups after all. You think resentment would come of it? Personally, in my run-ins with people at WP:ANI back in the day that created resentment, is when those responding, tossed AGF out the window, were rather uncivil about it, and then got their back up when they were called on it and whatever other policy they'd decided wasn't convenient that day - which tended to back and forth a bit until someone else came in and called them on the BS. But that's me. I thought the person I responded to was being a dick; even if he may have been technically right. Resentment ... hmm. What would you have told him ... or could still tell him I suppose given it's open? Nfitz (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Nfitz: YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary, a universal disclaimer borrowed from automotive advertese. Roughly “that‘s how I see it, but your perspective may be different.“—Odysseus1479 08:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- You're doing everything perfectly and the people objecting to your style are totally wrong. We get it, in fact we've seen it before. However, please add me to the list of those who believe your policy of flouting talk-page norms by copy-pasting comments between pages is confusing and pointy. Many years ago, some editors replied on the poster's talk, but pasting junk was not fashionable even then. In recent years, the silliness of those old habits has been understood by pretty well everyone. By the way, posting walls-of-text laden with links has also gone out of fashion—most people know to press PageDown whenever they see stuff like that because experience shows that trying to find whatever point is being made in such a blancmange is a waste of time. If you have a response to a comment, just make the response and leave the blue links for beginners. When someone suggests that a particular IP is a disruptive editor, probably a sock, who is being fed by attention, they are making a substantive claim. The only reasonable response would be to investigate the claim and back off if it seems plausible (say nothing), or refute the claim with evidence. Arguing is apparently important for some people, but my suggestion would be to have the last word and then drop this particular debate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Now consider that you have received some criticism, Nfitz, and go back to your own post above: "Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong". I can't help you further; please be done arguing on my page. Bishonen | talk 09:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- I don't feel I've been defensive with TJW - I've asked him for help in understanding where his objections are, so I don't repeat, and he won't (can't?) provide any. I'm scratching my head about who YMMV is. Garchy popped in, but I pretty much agreed with him. I'm missing something about MOS, as I'm not seeing much about talk pages at all, let alone linking. Finger wagging (goes back to ANI to read my post) ... you mean the "Go talk it out nicely. Don't WP:BITE and be WP:CIVIL. part of it". Surely a grownup would then stop and reflect on the whole thing, and look back to where they went wrong - they are grownups after all. You think resentment would come of it? Personally, in my run-ins with people at WP:ANI back in the day that created resentment, is when those responding, tossed AGF out the window, were rather uncivil about it, and then got their back up when they were called on it and whatever other policy they'd decided wasn't convenient that day - which tended to back and forth a bit until someone else came in and called them on the BS. But that's me. I thought the person I responded to was being a dick; even if he may have been technically right. Resentment ... hmm. What would you have told him ... or could still tell him I suppose given it's open? Nfitz (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I feel you're overlinking? No, I feel you're swarming all over the place. Do you realize how many times your name currently appears on the ANI page? Also, I feel you're sharing too much trite wisdom there, and telling people things they already know.. You're focusing on an unimportant detail in my post (the linking). There's nothing about linking on talkpages in MOS, really? What a lot of guidelines you know. What you're by contrast ignoring, both in your ANI response and here, is my main point: that your finger-wagging is unlikely to have a good effect on the people you direct it at, probably because they're mostly grownups. A bad effect, more like. Resentment. Aren't you interested in the effect? I'm not aware of any "guidelines for ANI discussions". We don't have every last thing codified. ANI etiquette is a loose baggy work in progress, like all the other traditions and practices here. I used ANI to comment on your posting on ANI because I thought it more direct, to comment right below an example of the kind of post I was objecting to. But YMMV; TJW used your page for the same purpose; and you were equally defensive about that, and wanted to know about the guidance and styleguide for who should contribute on ANI and how. Who do you see writing these styleguides? There are none; we're all on our own when it comes to writing and acting appropriately. But I'll take a shot at a short ANI styleguide for you, if you think it'll help:
To account or not to account
Regarding today's discussion of the disruptive IP, I wanted to explain more privately. Said editor has deposited my IP location information on the Talk page in question. Were I to switch to using an account now, my recognizable style and typing quirks would make it clear I was the same editor and would effectively out that account with regard to geolocation. To prevent this I would avoid editing the page in question under that account, page protection would block me from editing with or without an account (at least unless/until my pending request to oversight that IP information is acted upon). 50.37.123.131 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. I understand it can be undesirable to switch from IP to account in the midst of a fight. Though that's not so much because that IP has posted your location information. When you use an IP, anybody can see your location — it's just a click away. Look at your own talkpage. (I know it's a redlink; that doesn't matter.) See the "Geolocate" link? Anybody can geolocate an IP, any IP, just by clicking on "Geolocate". That's one of the reasons, indeed, for creating an account. For doing it from the beginning, I mean; I quite understand your reasons for not wanting to do it now. Anyway, I see you have posted some diffs for the other IP range on ANI; I'll take a look. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- Yes, I know they can look it up, but most people will not go to the effort. When someone puts it right there on the Talk page, that significantly reduces the effort involved. (I didn't want to delete it immediately because it would likely have just brought on another outburst from the other IP, or at least drawn attention to it. How long does an oversight request usually take?)
- You are right about the second (temporally first) IP range: likely stale, and the editor really went from simple annoyance to disruption after shifting to the more recent range, so probably not worthy of action. 50.37.123.159 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know; I doubt they'll oblige in any case, since it's so un-secret anyway. If it's just a matter of whether people have to take more or less trouble, removing it from the page would surely go a long way. Who reads histories? (Well, I do, but obviously not most people.) Unfortunately the talkpage is such a mess I can't find it to blank. Give me a quote — a few words — I can search for, and I will. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker) Does 50.37.123.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) know about revision deletion? I'm guessing not, if they are actually asking for WP:Oversight. They might feel better if you felt able to rev-del the geolocation as WP:CRD #3, "Purely disruptive material", perhaps? What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good thinking. But they haven't told me where it is yet. I don't much feel like combing through the history, when it would be so much simpler to do a search for a phrase. If 50.XX cares, I expect they will eventually tell me where it is. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- It occurred at this diff specifically, but this earlier edit also gave the information that's bugging 50.XX. I can imagine that they didn't really want to draw more attention to the info. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, right at the top? I couldn't face looking at the history, sorry. Revdel'd. 50.XX, it's as diappeared as it needs to be; check the history and you'll see what revdel does. Thank you, RexxS. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Cheers, both of you. 50.37.127.180 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Chère. Can I just point out this intermediate revision, which you may have overlooked, without appearing too picky? --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- ? It's supposed to be already invisible, because of the way it's placed in the history, surely? Isn't that how it works? (Are you saying you can see the text? I'll check tomorrow if Bishzilla can.) Also, when I tried to revdel it separately just now, the system told it "already had the required visibility settings". Mind you, I never did understand revdel 100%. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Thank you, Chère. Can I just point out this intermediate revision, which you may have overlooked, without appearing too picky? --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers, both of you. 50.37.127.180 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, right at the top? I couldn't face looking at the history, sorry. Revdel'd. 50.XX, it's as diappeared as it needs to be; check the history and you'll see what revdel does. Thank you, RexxS. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- It occurred at this diff specifically, but this earlier edit also gave the information that's bugging 50.XX. I can imagine that they didn't really want to draw more attention to the info. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good thinking. But they haven't told me where it is yet. I don't much feel like combing through the history, when it would be so much simpler to do a search for a phrase. If 50.XX cares, I expect they will eventually tell me where it is. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker) Does 50.37.123.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) know about revision deletion? I'm guessing not, if they are actually asking for WP:Oversight. They might feel better if you felt able to rev-del the geolocation as WP:CRD #3, "Purely disruptive material", perhaps? What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know; I doubt they'll oblige in any case, since it's so un-secret anyway. If it's just a matter of whether people have to take more or less trouble, removing it from the page would surely go a long way. Who reads histories? (Well, I do, but obviously not most people.) Unfortunately the talkpage is such a mess I can't find it to blank. Give me a quote — a few words — I can search for, and I will. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
- Hey, 50.XX! Another IP, 85.84.115.9, has just turned up and vandalized Lordship of Biscay and its talkpage. I was rather glad to see it, as it made it much easier to block the relevant range, 85.84.112.0/21. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
Oh noes
With reference to the Christ Myth edit war we previously discussed here, the editor in question has not taken in anything that was said on the talk page and has removed the sourced text yet again. I've reverted, but expect to be re-reverted soon. At this point, I wash my hands of the issue (topical, huh?). MjolnirPants, is it time to propose a topic ban? Feel free to suggest a way forward. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Gawd. (Even more topical!) And after Doug Weller warned them. I'll look at it tomorrow. I've gone to bed! Bishonen | talk 00:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- @RexxS:, I'm generally reluctant to ask for sanctions, but in this case I'm leaning towards "Yes, it's time." This editor seems to have a great deal of difficulty accepting that they can be wrong about anything. For an example of pretty much this exact same issue, but with an editor willing to accept correction, see the section Removing Dorothy Murdock's claims at the exact same article talk page. Contrast that with Rosa's tactics. I don't think there are any DSes which apply to this, so I believe an ANI thread is the way to go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Bishonen I typed the last having read, but for some reason not grokking your comment. I'll wait for you before starting an ANI thread. If you're willing to take action (or if Doug investigates the ping here and takes action himself) then there will be no need for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just blocked for 48 hours, with, I hope, an explanatory block notice. This user is well-informed, I think, and could be an asset, as soon as they figure out how Wikipedia works. I'm reluctant to start with a full-on topic ban or indefinite block. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- That works for me. In other news, I fixed the weird offset at the top of the Je sui Ikea template. It looks much better now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, arhh. I used your code, since I wanted to put it on the right hand side of the page, so I should probably go back and fetch the new code. Thanks for making it, it's very handsome. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Bish, your edit summary is off by about six months. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- You know what today is though? Possible the most ironic day for this editor to catch a block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you little user, is good info! Bishonen | talk 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Sorry all, missed it. I've just tried to set him straight about reverts as he insists he didn't revert. And again deal with a mistaken claim of being one-sided. I'm not dealing with the unblock request as I'm hoping yet another new to him admin will. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you little user, is good info! Bishonen | talk 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Oh, arhh. I used your code, since I wanted to put it on the right hand side of the page, so I should probably go back and fetch the new code. Thanks for making it, it's very handsome. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- That works for me. In other news, I fixed the weird offset at the top of the Je sui Ikea template. It looks much better now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Our Friend is back
Hello my pal. Our friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hemant_banswal has finished his two weeks suspension, and is already exchanging feature photos in articles with his own. The issue I have here this time isn't so much the quality of his photograph, but insistence on changing "feature article photos", without having the courtesy of going to the articles talk page, and getting a consensus. If he should run into an article that has "no feature opening photo", I would have no issue with him putting one of his there if it is a quality photo. But his habit of booting a feature photo in exchange for his own without consensus is inexcusable. Thanks→ Pocketthis (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Pocketthis: Indefinitely blocked by NeilN. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
- Until we meet again...thanks, and P.S. I think I may like MONGO. Cool Pic. Thanks→Pocketthis (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Note
I'm of the opinion that TRM's current block should be reduced to maybe a week or a number of days, as opposed to a month. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Take it to AN for community review. The request was filed at 21:01 UTC. There was one comment suggesting "cut him some slack", and then a decision was made by one admin at 21:41 UTC, a mere 40 minutes after the request. That's a denial of any opportunity for debate, and a decison taken unilaterally without consideration of even the small amount of debate that had occured (no slack was cut). The block was at the extreme end ("initially up to a month") of what was available, and well beyond what Wikipedia:Blocking policy #Duration of blocks indicates as standard: "While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations". --RexxS (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I did, and they said to take it to ArbCom. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
TRM AE
It appears that Arbcom specifically mentioned protecting the editor's talk page as an available remedy. "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I would suggest that you restore the protection unless User:Sandstein is OK with lifting it. Otherwise we might start going in circles unnecessarily. If Sandstein considers his protection to be an arb enforcement then another admin mustn't unilaterally lift it due to the well-known rules. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I'm afraid you're mistaken. The ArbCom decision was clear:
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.
- I've carefully examined both the log on that page and the DS log. The DS log makes no mention of sanctions on TRM (and it shouldn't). The case log carries the following entry from today:
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) blocked for a month for violating their conduct prohibition per AE request.
- As everyone can see, the sanction that is logged as "performed under the authorisation of a remedy" is a one month block. Any other sanction which may have been applied was not logged and is therefore unquestionably not an ArbCom sanction, so is subject to reversal like any other admin action. Given Sandstein's notorious inability to listen to reasoned argument, I wouldn't have advised 'Shonen to waste her time in taking up the matter before restoring talk-page access. I commend her on doing the right thing, and in such a timely manner. I'm almost at the stage of offering to run as an admin with the sole purpose of taking part in AE, just to restore some common sense to the process. --RexxS (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen: The talk page protection, which is explicitly provided for in the relevant remedy, is an arbitration enforcement action and you may therefore not unilaterally overturn it. (I did not log it because it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction.) The protection does not prevent an appeal because an appeal may also be submitted per e-mail. Please restore the talk page protection within an hour of your next edit following receipt of this message. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Sandstein: With respect, if TRM is abusing his talk page (and despite having multiple run-ins with TRM, I'm not certain he's doing that) surely the logical step would be to revoke talk page access? Why protect it? Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, and I might have done that, but the remedy does not permit revoking talk page access. It only allows full talk page protection. There may be reasons for why ArbCom made that decision, perhaps something to do with baiting or proxying? It's not my job as enforcing admin to second-guess that decision, only to enforce it. Sandstein 06:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: You may revoke talk page access pursuant to the normal blocking policy; it would not be an AE action in that case because it isn't under the remedy. The remedy does not say anything about being unable to remove talk page access, and continuing conduct on a user talk page that resulted in the block is a strong rationale for removing talk page access under the blocking policy. Having said that, this clearly was an AE action, and the protection must be restored. As for why protect the page, I expect that the Committee intended that provision to prevent grave-dancing or other behavior that might provoke TRM while he's blocked, resulting in further sanctions. Personally, I think such a protection is in the best interests of both the community and TRM himself to minimize unnecessary drama during the block. Note that that only works if administrators don't edit through the full protection, which was occurring earlier (and should not have been). ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 Trying this ping from scratch... ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I saw the first ping, I was just busy. I am not, obviously, as well versed in the ins-and-outs of arbitration policy as you folks; but intuitively, it seems to me that authority to block must include authority to take away talk page access with the block. While I can understand the concern over grave-dancing on the part of stalkers, or alternatively over TRM going into a rage and saying stuff he will later regret, my reasoning is as follows (admittedly my only interactions with TRM are at WT:DYK). What do we as a community want, ideally, from any disciplinary action against TRM? Ultimately, we want him to go back to creating and reviewing content (which he is good at) without unnecessarily getting under the skin of about ten people a day (which, currently, he is failing at). Removing his ability to edit his own talk page, in my view, undermines this objective in the long term, because it is in some ways treating him as a child. He is on his own talk page, where his snark can and will be ignored: so why not just leave him to it? Vanamonde (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 Trying this ping from scratch... ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: You may revoke talk page access pursuant to the normal blocking policy; it would not be an AE action in that case because it isn't under the remedy. The remedy does not say anything about being unable to remove talk page access, and continuing conduct on a user talk page that resulted in the block is a strong rationale for removing talk page access under the blocking policy. Having said that, this clearly was an AE action, and the protection must be restored. As for why protect the page, I expect that the Committee intended that provision to prevent grave-dancing or other behavior that might provoke TRM while he's blocked, resulting in further sanctions. Personally, I think such a protection is in the best interests of both the community and TRM himself to minimize unnecessary drama during the block. Note that that only works if administrators don't edit through the full protection, which was occurring earlier (and should not have been). ~ Rob13Talk 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Full protection of TRM's talk page is either a sanction or it's not. For this case, you are obliged to log any "block, restriction, ban, or sanction taken as an arbitration enforcement action" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man #Enforcement log. You did not log the full page protection because, you assert, "it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction." in that case, your action is not protected by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Modifications by administrators, which states "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without ..." (my emphasis). I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways. The page protection was vindictive and unnecessary, and your entire decision at AE was hasty and ill-judged. You should not be surprised when your actions are reverted by other admins when they are so far from what is reasonable, because WP:AC/DS #sanctions.modify was never meant to be used as an excuse for misuse of admin powers. --RexxS (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ignoring the above evidence that TRM is an unblockable, Sandstein, you probably do want to log the full protection. It's an action taken under a remedy, which is what's intended to be logged as a record that ArbCom can then reference as needed in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Your logic is faulty. Nothing I've adduced here could possibly be interpreted as showing that TRM is unblockable. Indeed, he is blocked, and anyone who can read can see that I have made no argument that he should not be. However, the action taken to fully protect the page is a different beast. There was no evidence adduced that such an action was needed, or even desirable, which means that it was not preventative. By his own admission, Sandstein believes that when he took the action, he was not performing "a block, restriction, ban or sanction". Are you arguing that his judgement in that was defective? If so, it speaks to the lack of wisdom exercised. It would certainly be foolish to attempt to retrospectively add the page protection to the log now, wouldn't you agree? What is absolutely certain is that any admin who attempts to re-impose the full protection now would be indisputably wheel-warring. --RexxS (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- BU Rob13, thanks for the sugestion, I have now logged the protection also. Sandstein 11:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sandstein, the talk page is not currently protected. Are you planing to re-protect it? I do not think that would be wise in the present circumstances; no one wants a contest over something like that. The rulez allow you to protect that talk page, but one of the reasons for allowing that possible action was to prevent gravedancing, and I don't see that happening. If you desire to stop TRM from accessing his own talk page, you can revoke his access to it--I fully realize I am to some extent repeating what Bish and Rexx have already said. I suppose I'm not here as Da Arb, but rather as someone who seeks clarity (the reason for the protection) and de-escalation. What I can tell you is that Da Arbz are talking about this, of course; I suppose this is the initial stage of a conversation and one of the topics is whether this or that needs to be tweaked. But let's try and deal with this particular situation first. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies, I do not intend to re-protect the talk page myself. I am awaiting a reply by Bishonen, and will then decide whether to request that the Arbitration Committee sanction her for her out-of-process reversal of an arbitration enforcement action. Sandstein 15:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ignoring the above evidence that TRM is an unblockable, Sandstein, you probably do want to log the full protection. It's an action taken under a remedy, which is what's intended to be logged as a record that ArbCom can then reference as needed in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sandstein, I thought your protection had to be a mistake. The only non-admin who had edited the page at that time was TRM himself. The procedure "revoke talkpage access" exists for the purpose of preventing the blocked owner of the page from editing it. There was no reason to stop everybody else below the rank of admin from commenting. (I still don't see any gravedancing, 28 hours after I unprotected, so the event doesn't seem to show the danger of that was imminent.) You say above (replying to Vanamonde) essentially that you protected the page because protecting was allowed for in the relevant remedy and revoking tpa wasn't. It's not the case, however, that everything on Wikipedia that isn't allowed for is forbidden. The remedy didn't say "Talkpage access must not be revoked". Of course you could have revoked tpa. Not as an AE action, no, but what's the big deal with that? Revoke is revoke.
You stated above, when you were asked why you didn't record the protection in the log, that it was because it wasn't a sanction. That makes sense IMO, because page protection surely isn't a sanction. I have to agree with RexxS above[15] that that's a big problem: if it wasn't a sanction, it's not protected by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Modifications by administrators: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator" bla bla.
Anyway. Just for completeness, and not relevant to whether or not you take me to ArbCom for undoing your AE action: I'm also opposed to revoking tpa. (I'm kind of for the block itself, though I believe it was overlong.) I'm nearly always against revoking tpa for venting against a block. It seems like adding insult to injury. But anyway, tpa wasn't revoked. BTW, I disagree with the people who have said you should have waited for more comments at AE. That's really OT here, though, and I've posted a detailed comment about it on AN. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker)I took a look at this solely due to it's "interesting factor" in that an admin has turned in their mop under cloudy circumstances and been subjected to a block as the result of their behavior. I don't really have an opinion on the outcome of this discussion, either. But I will say that the direction of arguments (in the formal sense, not to imply that this is a particularly heated discussion) in this thread is a little troubling. All sides seem to be flirting with -if not outright engaging in- wikilawyering. Now, I'll probably get quite a bit of chastisement for saying so, but I would like to humbly suggest that the best course of discussion would be to answer the question: Should TRM's talk page be protected? Not whether the prior protection or unprotection was 'proper'. Now, feel free to expound in great detail why I'm wrong, and how arrogant it was of me to jump in here to tell the rest of you what you're doing wrong. I'll not defend myself beyond saying that I was just offering my two cents, as a fairly disinterested third party. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Haha, if you think we're wikilawyering, you should have seen the last time I was taken to RFAR for unprotecting a blocked user's talkpage![16] There hasn't been any gravedancing since I unprotected, which it has been suggested was a concern on the part of arbcom here. I don't know if it was a concern on Sandstein's part; if he has said so, I haven't seen it. Indeed I haven't seen him say why he protected at all — you'll have to ask him. That protection was allowed for is not what I'd call a reason, and I refuse to believe he thinks so, either. The page is better unprotected — just look at it now. Unprotected is the default state of pages. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
- I'm not going to comment on the core issue unless explicitly asked, but I will say that this response is pretty much exactly what I was hoping for: a reasoned argument as to why the page should remain unprotected/why the page should be protected with no consideration of rules. MjolnirPant's first rule of rules is: When a rule gets in the way, don't just break it; ignore it completely. (On the other hand, I have to admit to being a wee bit disappointed that I remain un-excoriated.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Haha, if you think we're wikilawyering, you should have seen the last time I was taken to RFAR for unprotecting a blocked user's talkpage![16] There hasn't been any gravedancing since I unprotected, which it has been suggested was a concern on the part of arbcom here. I don't know if it was a concern on Sandstein's part; if he has said so, I haven't seen it. Indeed I haven't seen him say why he protected at all — you'll have to ask him. That protection was allowed for is not what I'd call a reason, and I refuse to believe he thinks so, either. The page is better unprotected — just look at it now. Unprotected is the default state of pages. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, I have filed a request for clarification about questions I think are raised by your reversal of my protection of the user talk page. Sandstein 17:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have responded there. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
- @'Shonen, I can tell you why Sandstein fully-protected TRM's talk page – straight from the horse's mouth, as it were – this edit:
"According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited, "the enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I note that in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins". Consequently, your talk page is fully protected for the duration of the block."
- And that's the problem: he chose to fully protect a talk page instead of revoking talkpage access, almost certainly in the mistaken belief that that action could not be overturned. It's clear from his subsequent comments that he did not make his decision by exercising judgement about what measure would have been most appropriate, but simply picked full-protection because ArbCom had mentioned it as being with an admin's discretion (but with no understanding of the reason why ArbCom chose to mention it), and he thought that by calling it an "AE action", it would become unchallengeable. That's the very worst reason for picking a measure to discourage TRM from using phrases like "shit admins". There's a certain irony there, that I assure you won't be lost to ArbCom if I'm forced to take my case to them. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @'Shonen, I can tell you why Sandstein fully-protected TRM's talk page – straight from the horse's mouth, as it were – this edit:
Qué tal Taichi?.
Ya veo que por aquí sigues siendo un baboso-infantil igual que en la española. También te tengo fichado en la japonesa.
Agur anti-vasco!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.84.184.165 (talk • contribs)
- No. Bish is not a babbling baby!! You may have confused Bishonen with Bishbaby. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please block that IP and blank out his gross insult in my talkpage? Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Maragm, I've just noted above and on ANI that I've had to semiprotect Lordship of Biscay and its talkpage, because the individual has access to such a big range that I can't block it. I honestly don't see any point in blocking the individual IP, since it keeps jumping about. Me, blank the insults? Well, if you like, but you can just as well revert them yourself, as you have been doing. Question: Would you like me to semiprotect your talkpage as well, for a couple of weeks? That will keep the IP out effectively, which blocks won't. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
- Could you please block that IP and blank out his gross insult in my talkpage? Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Maragm: Sorry you have to suffer through such insults and harassments, please know I admire your work and the quality of reliable sources you bring. Nice birds pic in the MONGO box. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's lovely! Thank you very much, Maragm. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
Wordsighn
What is a administration? Wordsighn (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know, Wordsighn. Did you mean "What is an administrator?" If you did, please click on WP:ADMIN and read all about it. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
- How do you become one? Wordsighn (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- First you have to be an experienced editor who knows a lot about how Wikipedia works, because the duties of adminship can't be carried out very well unless you know your way around. And secondly you have to have interacted with others in a good way, which makes them trust you and think that you'd be a good admin who doesn't abuse the admin tools (did you read about the admin tools at WP:ADMIN?). Then you can apply for adminship at WP:RFA, and other people can comment on your application. If you take a look at this successful application, and this unsuccessful application, you'll get a bit of a feeling for what's required. Believe me, you're not ready, Wordsighn, and you won't be until you have acquired more Wikipedia skills. Applying before you're ready is a not a good idea, because then the discussion can easily become a depressing rejection-fest, as somebody put it in the second discussion I linked to. There's more advice in the Guide to requests for adminship. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
- Alternatively, you can have 'zilla monster as your PR manager. "Nice community you have here. Be shame if Bishonen could not protect it and nice community turned into the Hellmouth." --NeilN talk to me 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, little NeilN. Be a shame if Bishonen couldn't unprotect stuff, too, wouldn't it? Did you know she schlepped to RFAR once for, guess it, unprotect talkpage of blocked user? It her favorite thing, unprotecting those. (Don't worry, young Wordsighn, we just chatting.) bishzilla ROARR!! 22:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
- Alternatively, you can have 'zilla monster as your PR manager. "Nice community you have here. Be shame if Bishonen could not protect it and nice community turned into the Hellmouth." --NeilN talk to me 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- First you have to be an experienced editor who knows a lot about how Wikipedia works, because the duties of adminship can't be carried out very well unless you know your way around. And secondly you have to have interacted with others in a good way, which makes them trust you and think that you'd be a good admin who doesn't abuse the admin tools (did you read about the admin tools at WP:ADMIN?). Then you can apply for adminship at WP:RFA, and other people can comment on your application. If you take a look at this successful application, and this unsuccessful application, you'll get a bit of a feeling for what's required. Believe me, you're not ready, Wordsighn, and you won't be until you have acquired more Wikipedia skills. Applying before you're ready is a not a good idea, because then the discussion can easily become a depressing rejection-fest, as somebody put it in the second discussion I linked to. There's more advice in the Guide to requests for adminship. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
- How do you become one? Wordsighn (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)