Revision as of 15:42, 10 November 2012 editThe Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs)19,695 edits →RFAR: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:44, 10 November 2012 edit undoElen of the Roads (talk | contribs)16,638 edits →RFAR: half a sentence missingNext edit → | ||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
Could you explain more specifically why you struck out your vote?--] (]) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | Could you explain more specifically why you struck out your vote?--] (]) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Yeah, no problem. I went back to the basic principles, and came up with a line of reasoning that looks like this:- | |||
The following policies/customs/practice apply here | |||
* If two or more editors are going at it hammer and tongs in a legit content dispute and will not stop, they can all be ibanned or tbanned to damp it down | |||
* If two or more editors spend their time following each other around the project sniping, they can be ibanned | |||
* If one editor follows another editor around persistently, for a long time, sniping, that is disruptive | |||
* If editors are editing in a disruptive manner in an area, they can be sanctioned with tbans, blocks and bans | |||
* If editors are trolling, they shoud be blocked | |||
* If someone is being trolled by socks, the socks should be blocked | |||
* If someone supports the trolling from the sock, they should be blocked | |||
Let's leave out the two sockmasters for the moment. Focus on the editors who have legitimate accounts. | |||
IIf the users with legitimate accounts were doing nothing wrong, they shouldn't have been ibanned. | |||
If Mathsci is equally bad in how he interacts with the legitimate accounts, a normal (two way) iban would have been the right remedy | |||
If Mathsci was behaving well but the other editors included in the iban were engaged in following Mathsci around sniping, the other editors should have been blocked or tbanned for being disruptive. | |||
If the other editors were trolling, they should have been blocked for trolling. | |||
If they were supporting the trolling socks, they should have been blocked for that. | |||
At the end of the day, a one way interaction ban would appear to be the wrong remedy, but I don't have enough processed data to decide what the right remedy is, so I struck my vote. It seems to me that the issue of trolling socks, and the issue of the behaviour of the legitimate editors, is getting conflated, but the remedies proposed are not dealing with that. What should have happened if Arbcom was not going to support the original AE sanction was an examination of the behaviour of all parties against the checklist above, to determine where all the behaviours fall. Since everything on Misplaced Pages becomes stale so quickly, I don't know if there is still the opportunity to do this. ] (]) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:44, 10 November 2012
If you are an admin and are here about a block I have made, feel free to lift or amend if the situation has changed, miscreant has repented, consensus is now against block etc. Please let me know you have done so. Thanks. |
|
Archives |
Misspelled music festivals * 2009 * 2010(1) * 2010(2) * 2011(1) * 2011(2) * 2012(1) * 2012(2) * 2012(3) |
I wonder if anyone got your reference....
You're the second person I know of who's read the Lensman series. MSJapan (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- User:Orangemike is another. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
And the answer is
907 mainspace edits. Nobody Ent 22:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your post made me curious, so I went and looked myself up. I seem to have 7954 mainspace edits. I had no idea I had made that many. KillerChihuahua 22:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick thanks for quick Oversighting. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Infobox dispute
You once mediated a similar infobox dispute. Can you be objective at Stephen H. Wendover as to whether the infobox is a distraction to the reader, or is helpful to the reader? Both arguments are valid and really more an issue of aesthetics, so a third opinion ... well, a fourth in this case, would be helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 November 2012
- Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end
- News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments
- In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?
- Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks
- Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads
- Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs
Mail call
I've dropped you a line. Worm(talk) 16:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
More MMA Socks
Just to let you know some more MMA SPA's have shown up, for example Nurple is the New Purple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Noahco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) along with Jfgsloeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for which there is an open WP:ANI here. Mtking 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Got 'em all three, and Noahco's kid brother User:Blio sucks. Nurple and Jfgsloeditor are BStudent0 socks, Noahco is editing on proxies now blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nest of 'em?? Us socks come in drawers, not "nests"! Jester of the court (NE sock) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will suggest at the ANI that the 3 pages he created should be WP:G5'ed in line with WP:DENY, I can't believe any of the other !voters will object. Mtking 23:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Male call
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail!It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Nobody Ent 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit war
You showed interest in the discussion at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover the other day. As an admin, could you look at this again? Mr. Norton is currently starting an edit war over the infobox, claiming consensus, although the discussion on the talk page IMO shows that there is none. Kraxler (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
First track off The Poison
Hello! I've noticed that the name of the first song off the album The Poison is wrong. The real name is "Intro", not "Intro ... My Lifestyle". I tried to change it, but there are two users who do not stop reverting my edits without consulting. So I've been involved in an edit war. An unregistered user changed back the name several times and he added a reference from Last.fm, but I think that is not a reliable source. Moreover, I have added some references to the talk page such as the official BFMV website, itunes, BBC and even a picture of the album.
This is so frustrating! I have that CD in my house (I bought it a few years ago because I was a big fan of Bullet For My Valentine) and I can read clearly that the name of the song is just "Intro". So I want to ask you to end this discussion. Thank you. Cristian MH (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- No point telling me - I'm not going to edit the article. I'm just trying to stop you getting blocked for edit warring, because no-one seems to agree with you at the moment, which puts you in the wrong Wikipolicy-wise. If you can't get them to communicate on the talkpage, try going to WP:DRN for more eyes on the question. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Blocked from editing The Poison?
I already agreed to stop editing the track names, and even added more reviews to the reception section since the disbute ended. I have talked with the user on his and my talk page, and I haven't edited anything regarding the tracks since I told them I would stop. I wasn't even warned about an edit war, and I only reverted twice meaning I in no way violated the 3RR. I am requesting that you unblock me from editing The Poison as I did not violate any rules. TJD2 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't blocked you. I have locked the article so no-one can edit it (see WP:PROTECT), because it kept changing every few hours, and that's no good for our readers. Decide amongst yourselves what is going to go in the article - if necessary go to WP:DRN to get some of the dispute resolution people to help you work it out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with that; I figured after I posted this that it might be just locked, but wasn't sure as I don't ever log off Misplaced Pages. As I said, I'm done with the track name argument, and have been for a while. I agree with you about the constant updates. Thank you for addressing my concern.TJD2 (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's cool. You should have no difficulties editing anywhere else, my locking the article does not reflect upon yourself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Urgent intervention on WP:ANI
Dear "Elen of the Roads"
I can't take this user's abuse anymore. If well intentioned editors can get harassed like this, I don't want to continue at Misplaced Pages. RobertRosen (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
RFAR
Could you explain more specifically why you struck out your vote?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, no problem. I went back to the basic principles, and came up with a line of reasoning that looks like this:-
The following policies/customs/practice apply here
- If two or more editors are going at it hammer and tongs in a legit content dispute and will not stop, they can all be ibanned or tbanned to damp it down
- If two or more editors spend their time following each other around the project sniping, they can be ibanned
- If one editor follows another editor around persistently, for a long time, sniping, that is disruptive
- If editors are editing in a disruptive manner in an area, they can be sanctioned with tbans, blocks and bans
- If editors are trolling, they shoud be blocked
- If someone is being trolled by socks, the socks should be blocked
- If someone supports the trolling from the sock, they should be blocked
Let's leave out the two sockmasters for the moment. Focus on the editors who have legitimate accounts.
IIf the users with legitimate accounts were doing nothing wrong, they shouldn't have been ibanned.
If Mathsci is equally bad in how he interacts with the legitimate accounts, a normal (two way) iban would have been the right remedy
If Mathsci was behaving well but the other editors included in the iban were engaged in following Mathsci around sniping, the other editors should have been blocked or tbanned for being disruptive.
If the other editors were trolling, they should have been blocked for trolling.
If they were supporting the trolling socks, they should have been blocked for that.
At the end of the day, a one way interaction ban would appear to be the wrong remedy, but I don't have enough processed data to decide what the right remedy is, so I struck my vote. It seems to me that the issue of trolling socks, and the issue of the behaviour of the legitimate editors, is getting conflated, but the remedies proposed are not dealing with that. What should have happened if Arbcom was not going to support the original AE sanction was an examination of the behaviour of all parties against the checklist above, to determine where all the behaviours fall. Since everything on Misplaced Pages becomes stale so quickly, I don't know if there is still the opportunity to do this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)