Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:28, 1 August 2011

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

• User:Cailil is extremely busy in real life, so please do not be offended if your message is not replied immediately. Due to many commitments, in work, personal life and elsewhere on the internet, he may be intermittently less active on wikipedia. He will do his best to check in daily but has less time available for wikipedia at the moment.
• Please bear in mind that this page is subject to wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Violations of these policies will be enforced. In short do not make posts here that personally attack, assume bad faith or constitute use of wikipedia as a battleground or a forum. Thank you--Cailil 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The block of 2.220.204.70

I'll start by noting that the language of the IP 2.220.204.70 is not acceptable, but my limited review of the edit exchange leads me to belief that, on the merits, the IP edits were good edits. In addition, the IP did a better job at using edit summaries, and making a clear case, including appeals to relevant guidelines. The profanity is unfortunate, but may be a result of making clear sense in edit summaries and on the talk page, yet getting reverted without good reason, and treated like a vandal. We have procedures for dispute resolution that the IP did not pursue, but unless there's evidence that the IP is familiar with Misplaced Pages process, and rules regarding decorum, I think the IP should be cut some slack. I suggest reducing the block to 24 hours.

I'm also inclined to make the edit myself. I've only scanned the exchange, but the argument for "said" over "explained" sounds solid. I think the burden is on those preferring "explained" to, well explain themselves. However, these two actions are not linked, and I want to review the entire exchange further before making the edit.

I don't think it would be helpful for me to revise the block unilaterally, which is why I am here. Can we discuss to see if I'm missing something?--SPhilbrickT 18:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick. Well, the block is for a pattern of abusive and disruptive behaviour in contravention of WP:5 across a series of content disputes, not just the one. It doesn't matter if 2.220.204.70 was right about the Van Tuong Nguyen content issue ("said" / "explained") as long as they are going to ignore the rest of WP:5. Indeed I extended that block from 5 days to 10 after reading the WQA thread (which the IP initiated) where the IP was warned (days ago) to reconsider its approach. Thus at this point the IP has been made fully aware of site policy wrt behaviour and has instead of acting appropriately resorted to abusive and uncivil use of the talk-space and launched personal attacks on/been repeatedly incivil to 3 editors. There is also a long running serious issue of abuse of edit-summaries for example. That said I would be happy to implement a reduction/unblock of 2.220.204.70 (to time served) as soon as they accept the reason for blocking and give a commitment to change their problematic behaviour--Cailil 19:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. My review so far has been limited to the Van Tuong Nguyen page and talk page. I'll look at those other locations.--SPhilbrickT 20:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do see you point BTW and like I said if the IP can do a proper unblock request I'd be happy enough to unblock and AGF--Cailil 20:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm reading those posts very differently than you, (although your response suggests perhaps we are closer now). I thought the IP was quite right to post the rquest at WQA. The posts by Dave1185 appear inappropriate, and it is disappointing that, other than User:Born2cycle, there's so little support for the notion that the IP is mostly in the right. The strong language does make it harder to make this a clear case, and language like that isn't excused, even when provoked, but it does appear the IP was provoked. The IP was accused of vandalism and there is nothing that hints of vandalism. The IP was called a troll by Dave1185. I see you admonished him for that, but I'd like to see an apology. The IP was given a vandalism "welcome". That was highly inappropriate, and deserves an apology.

I reviewed the multiple examples of uncivil posting, and see only one clear cut example.

All that said, we may be on the same page. The uncivil language by the IP cannot continue. If the IP agrees to moderate the language, we can unblock with time served. However, I intend to request (obviously, I have no authority to compel) that some editors, Dave1185 either apologize to the IP, or explain to me why my understanding was wrong.

In addition, we need to address the edit to the page. The current wording is simply wrong. The IP was right that "explained" is wrong. However, I haven't seen the evidence that Lee said anything, so it may be more complicated than changing "explained to "said".--SPhilbrickT 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into content issues but if I remember correctly one of the posts in reply to content issue stated the same point as you - the source doesn't back up either position--Cailil 21:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and sorry if I rambled a bit. I was asked to take a look into this, so I'm trying to review both the conduct issues and the edit itself. I agree you don't have to deal with the edit itself.--SPhilbrickT 22:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet another major failure to assume good faith. You could have asked the Spanish IP why it was replying on a UK IP's page. You can see the reasons now, on the Spanish IP talk page. But you didn't - you just assumed malice, blocked and ran. Not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.27.93 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, I was going to let you know about the above mentioned IP evading his/her block (see my talk page) but it looks like they self-reported. Seems a little obsessive to me --Snowded 05:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As a still relatively new admin, I'm very willing to accept advice from those with more experience. I steered clear of using admin tools, although reviewing some of my edits, I see my statement that "I don't think it would be helpful for me to revise the block unilaterally," might be construed as an implicit threat to do so, and, if not using the tools, arguably threatening to do so.

I felt the protection of the page was not justified, but I deliberately did not change the protection level, so I would not be viewed as an admin stepping in. I tried to tread lightly on the editing itself. No one seemed willing to remove the problematic sentence, which was unquestionably unsupported by the source, but rather than add a revised sentence back in, I tried to suggest options at the talk page, which have stalled. Was your comment about my admin hat directed at my statement above, or something else? In retrospect, I think it would have been better to post as an editor, and ask for a reconsideration of the block, without hinting that I might take action. If there's something else, please let me know.--SPhilbrickT 17:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah no problem Sphilbrick I did indeed get the impression you came to this as an admin first by the phrasing of your query about the initial block. No worries --Cailil 12:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's understandable. I was asked by an involved party to take a look, and that was one of my first posts on the subject. I hadn't given much thought to what "hat" I was wearing, and should have worked harder at simply gathering information. I do see some positives coming out of this. More than one editor, whose actions I perceived as a little heavy-handed at first, have come to realize the situation was a bit more nuanced than it originally appeared. Oft-times, these situations result in both sides digging in further, and I see some examples, with two notable exceptions, of parties reaching less extreme conclusions. I wish the IP would concede to some over-reaction, and request an unblock, then go on to edit productively. Maybe there's still hope.--SPhilbrickT 19:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW SPhilbrick, with regard to this, given the level of block evasion and the refusal to get the point on the part of that IP editor I would not be happy simply to unblock/reduce to time served at present.
Due to level of block evasion it would be counter productive for the project to reward such behaviour. There is a point at which one has to recognize that this IP user who began with seriously inappropriate conduct (edit summaries and WP:CIVIL breaches) and continues with that style of interaction does not have the necessary competence to edit in a collegial environment based on consensus and policies. Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in anarchy.
I remain happy to reduce the block as appropriate once the user signs up to WP:5 in full--Cailil 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh (directed at the situation, not at you). I posted that before realizing the IP appears to have used yet another IP to post. I don't think it would be reasonable to call the use of a Spanish IP a block evasion, if a resident of the UK happened to be in Spain at the time the UK IP was blocked. It might be technically the rule, but it is as clear an example of a rationale for IAR as I've seen. However, assuming the IP is back in London, and not appealing the block, I agree that the IP is not attempting to resolve the situation in a reasonable manner. I still contend that one editor acted in such an egregious way that apologies, at a minimum are appropriate, So it troubles me that we are insisting that an IP, whose edit were in the right, is being told to politely request block removal, which may not be granted, and not a single editor who made the situation worse is being called on the carpet. I agree that the processes are separate, and the IP should agree to stop evading blocks and agree to follow the rules independently of whatever action might be taken against others, but looking through the eyes of the IP, it sure looks like a pile-on, and no action taken against the truly offending parties.--SPhilbrickT 22:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No disagreement from me about other editors' behaviour. But I'm afraid that concentrating on whether the IP was right on a single word content matter on Van Tuong Nguyen requires that we ignore the sum total of their behaviour as 2.220.204.70 and with 2 Spanish Ips and the new UK Ip. This person is setting off most of the red flags we have for disruptive users (WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:NPA etc) and seem to be looking for a fight (even before the Van Tuong Nguyen issue). They have been continually offered the opertunity to sign-up to site standards and policy but rather than doing so and moving on they have found ways to waste our time with block evasion--Cailil 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I support the block of 90.199.34.148 as block evasion. However, I do not understand why a template has been added claiming that the IP engaged in vandalism. I've seen no vandalism. Did I miss something? I'm losing my interest in supporting someone who isn't lifting a finger to respond, but I'd like to bend over backwards to make sure we don't make errors simply because the IP is being intractable. (If there's a rule somewhere defining block evasion as vandalism, I'll accept that, but the rule is wrong.)--SPhilbrickT 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I confess I haven't been very active on the vandalism front, but I see the phrase "In response to vandalism from this IP address", I say we should modify the template if we use it as a matter of course in non-vandalism situations. IIRC, this particular IP took offense to being called a vandal. I understand the concern. Thanks for the offer to use a different template.--SPhilbrickT 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem - the vandalism box in IP template is pretty standard but do go ahead an talk it out at the template. I'll change the templates to {{whois}} - it gives other ppl who use these IPs the info they need--Cailil 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User Caiboshtank

Hi Cailil, looks like a new sock of MidnightBlueMan has popped up - check out User:Caiboshtank --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dealt with via the AN3 report - btw HK please have a read of WP:DENY & WP:GRIEFER. This person(s) is encouraged by giving them exceptional notice. Ignoring them and reporting them through the normal channels (AN3 in this case) without highlighting the names of prior accounts (except when necessary) is best. Besides an admin will see the pattern very clearly--Cailil 12:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AKnight2B

Cailil, could you please tell me what I can do to prove my innocence? I have been watching the investigation and the other users Talk hoping to be exonerated; however, I am still being accused and this is effecting my reputation on any edit, comment, or creation I do. I am a very well respected advisor to Parliament and have never used any form of sock puppeteering in my life. The only thing which has been stated is:

• "they do share one IP address that hasn't been used by any other user." and
• "That IP address shows them on the same operating system"

However, the Admin goes on to say:

• "but using a different browser."
• "Each account does use other IP addresses that are not shared between these two"

Given that i use free internet provided by public hotspots that are provided to millions of UK residences, it is not unlikely that I might have gotten an IP that someone else had at some point. Especially as these IPs are shared IPs and that the user claims they were at the same event I was. This would suggest that we are both residents of central London. BUT this only happened once (according to the admin who placed the note) And as for the other point of us both using the the same operating system. Over half of the world Uses Windows.

Now looking at the evidence in my favour, we are using different browsers, considering the only browser installed on my PC is Internet Explorer, and "does not use other IP addresses" There is not court of law in the world that would convict and penalize an individual with a permanent record as detrimental as this, based on this information.

Please tell me what I can do to prove my innocence, especially when there is no evidence that would suggest guilt. AKnight2B (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:HighKing continues

On my talk page, you asserted that "if another edit like this happens HK wil have violated his warning and will be sanctioned". Well, now he has. He has again removed the term "British Isles" even though the source explicitly uses that term. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stemonitis. Indeed, I was in the middle of confirming my warning to him when that happened so I will ask another sysop to review. On the matter of his edit I do think his talk page message has a point but I don't see why he reverted your article edit (and agree in whole with your reply to him on that talk page). As such I'm of the opinion that the probation may have been breached, but want another set of eyes before acting. If any further reverts on that article, or the ant article, occur however I will act myself--Cailil 18:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for a second set of eyes made--Cailil 18:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the effort, and I understand how demanding such decisions can be. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In light of my revert occurring before you affirmed the warning, and the concerns expressed here, I've self reverted. Indeed I will always self-revert if requested and discussions are in progress. I also understand (in retrospect) how my reverting on a different article might be seen as continuing an edit war from a previous (but related) article - that wasn't obvious to me until now. --HighKing (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)