| Revision as of 16:25, 27 October 2011 editSarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators51,670 edits →Unfair treatment: rationale for block lengths← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:31, 27 October 2011 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,769 edits →Unfair treatmentNext edit → | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
| I'd like to comment about your recent AE block. I think it is unfair to block an editor with a history of i-ban violations and multiple diffs showing recent violations for the same length that an editor with smaller history of i-ban violation, and only one place where the violation has occurred. Looking at the respective block logs, I see that one editor has two previous blocks (including from this summer), the other, only one (and that from over a year ago). I do not believe they deserve equal-length blocks. Also, I just made a comment at AE in which I suggest clarifying i-bans, and warnings instead of blocks, as I believe at least some parties involved may not be very clear on what an i-ban allows and what it doesn't. I'd ask you to consider taking this into account in revising the block lengths (downwards, of course). Thank you, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 16:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | I'd like to comment about your recent AE block. I think it is unfair to block an editor with a history of i-ban violations and multiple diffs showing recent violations for the same length that an editor with smaller history of i-ban violation, and only one place where the violation has occurred. Looking at the respective block logs, I see that one editor has two previous blocks (including from this summer), the other, only one (and that from over a year ago). I do not believe they deserve equal-length blocks. Also, I just made a comment at AE in which I suggest clarifying i-bans, and warnings instead of blocks, as I believe at least some parties involved may not be very clear on what an i-ban allows and what it doesn't. I'd ask you to consider taking this into account in revising the block lengths (downwards, of course). Thank you, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 16:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :Their last i-ban violations got them 3 and 4 day blocks -- therefore, 1 week is reasonable for both, imo. --] 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | :Their last i-ban violations got them 3 and 4 day blocks -- therefore, 1 week is reasonable for both, imo. --] 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::Setting aside the difference in 4 and 3 days (which is 25%), there remain: 1) the number of current incidents/violations (reported in the AE thread), which at the very least are 2:1 2) the number of sanctioned violations, total (at my count, 2:1), and 3) the time of those sanctioned violations (this summer to over a year ago, not to mention that one editor has been asking a lot about the i-ban, and presumably knows a lot more about the boundaries than the other one). Isn't it considered a good practice to reset or at least lower the length of consecutive blocks if the violations are less frequent than a year (seeing as most things over a year on wiki are considered stale, ancient history)? All of this suggests to me that equal treatment is unfair. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 16:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:31, 27 October 2011
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
| Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan |
|---|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.
Good block
- Per this: Good block, nuff said~! --Dave 19:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Please review these blocks
There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.
- Calamitybrook (talk · block log · block user) by SarekOfVulcan at 2011-10-06T15:01:01Z, expires infinity: ] or ]: telling editors they had better hide their RL identity is beyond the pale
- Ken keisel (talk · block log · block user) by SarekOfVulcan at 2011-10-06T19:03:29Z, expires infinity:
- TVFan2012 (talk · block log · block user) by SarekOfVulcan at 2011-10-13T02:55:52Z, expires infinity:
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
A beer for you
|
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
WT:RIGHT
What gives? – Lionel 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- You asked for revdel in a case that doesn't come close to fulfilling any of the revdel criteria, so there's no further action needed on the report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- So what do you propose? Block? Page ban? Don't tell me... trout.– Lionel 04:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Minnow, more like. After all, we are talking about a politician who gave an interview in front of a slaughterhouse during the run-up to Thanksgiving... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Et tu Sarek? :-o
– Lionel 04:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- What? Did I make a disparaging remark? *looks innocent* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Et tu Sarek? :-o
- Minnow, more like. After all, we are talking about a politician who gave an interview in front of a slaughterhouse during the run-up to Thanksgiving... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- So what do you propose? Block? Page ban? Don't tell me... trout.– Lionel 04:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Frank Pavone protection
Would you mind adding the page protected template to the page? Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Consensus of the Heroes in Hell Merge - Did it include all of the Books and Stories?
According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.
When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I am sure you know what a legal threat is...
...and how use of the Wiki libel page is not. I clearly stated he was crossing a line. Made no threat of any action, legal or otherwise.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also I have no problem mentioning that I received a block for a boarder line offense of this nature, lost privileges that will likely never return as well as the respect of many in the project over the issue that will take time to recover if ever. Learning from mistakes is something I take seriously.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
10c removal edit summaries
I've performed several thousand of these edits with this edit summary. I use the wording I do because I've run into people who think 10c is optional. The point is to convey via edit summary that this isn't optional, and to give links to appropriate policy and essays. If a person restores an image, I use User:Hammersoft/10c as a template to further bring home the point. The manner in which I conduct these edits has worked quite well. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 October 2011
- From the editors: A call for contributors
- Opinion essay: There is a deadline
- Interview: Contracting for the Foundation
- WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case
- Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello SarekOfVulcan! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
AE
Hi. Note that this was the first violation of the interaction ban for Volunteer Marek and the fourth one for Russavia. Are you sure that the length of the block should be the same? Colchicum (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I count second to third, but I agree with your sentiment (see my post below). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfair treatment
I'd like to comment about your recent AE block. I think it is unfair to block an editor with a history of i-ban violations and multiple diffs showing recent violations for the same length that an editor with smaller history of i-ban violation, and only one place where the violation has occurred. Looking at the respective block logs, I see that one editor has two previous blocks (including from this summer), the other, only one (and that from over a year ago). I do not believe they deserve equal-length blocks. Also, I just made a comment at AE in which I suggest clarifying i-bans, and warnings instead of blocks, as I believe at least some parties involved may not be very clear on what an i-ban allows and what it doesn't. I'd ask you to consider taking this into account in revising the block lengths (downwards, of course). Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Their last i-ban violations got them 3 and 4 day blocks -- therefore, 1 week is reasonable for both, imo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Setting aside the difference in 4 and 3 days (which is 25%), there remain: 1) the number of current incidents/violations (reported in the AE thread), which at the very least are 2:1 2) the number of sanctioned violations, total (at my count, 2:1), and 3) the time of those sanctioned violations (this summer to over a year ago, not to mention that one editor has been asking a lot about the i-ban, and presumably knows a lot more about the boundaries than the other one). Isn't it considered a good practice to reset or at least lower the length of consecutive blocks if the violations are less frequent than a year (seeing as most things over a year on wiki are considered stale, ancient history)? All of this suggests to me that equal treatment is unfair. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)