Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:17, 9 March 2013

Feel free to reverse my administrative actions; however, please let me know why you did it, especially if I made a mistake!

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit filter disabled

Hey Reaper. You recently . A day after it was disabled, some vandalism resumed that the edit filter would have stopped, and someone let me know about it on my talk page. When you get a chance, pop over to my talk page and join the conversation on the subject, and let's see if we can find a way to re-enable that filter, and perhaps make it less of a resource hog, and have less false positives. The alternative is range-blocking 163k IP's. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 00:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEATProxy Editing

It is considered meat puppetryproxy editing to recruit others to post material that the person is prohibited from doing. cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is blocked from editing his talk page. He recruited another user to post his words on that talk page. That is an meatpuppetedit by proxy. Admins shouldn't be assisting meatpuppetsproxy editors that are being used to circumscribe talk page blocks. If you think cla68 should be able to edit his talk page and post his own words, unblock his talk page and he can add it himself. I suspect you will realize what would happen if you circumscribed arbcoms block that included the talk page. Enabling meat puppetryproxy edits is the same thing. Arbcom can add that material to his talk page if they believe it is not disruptive. cla68 can request ArbCom to add it. As it stands, it only prolongs the drama if you help blocked users circumscribe the block (i.e. his block from editing his talk page). I suggest you revert your edit and refer it to ArbCom for inclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I won't self-revert. Instead, you should re-read WP:SOCK and tell me exactly what part of that policy I am violating. Furthermore, in contrast to your rather unsubtle insinuations, I rather doubt that I and Kablammo would qualify as meatpuppets considering that we have over 75,000 edits between us. Additionally, I contest that we were recruited to Misplaced Pages solely to support Cla68, given that we have been here for years prior to this incident. You don't even know whether I disagree with Cla68's block—I don't. Posting content at the request of a blocked user is indeed allowed; however, the poster needs to ensure that what he is posting is following all applicable policies. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I pointed you to WP:MEAT. Here is the policy in the sock block section. There is no reason to haggle over whether meatpuppets are established or new editors. It is policy not to allow other editors to post material of blocked editors. I reverted that per policy. You undid that revert with no policy explanation. Please self-revert as your action is outside of policy. --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

That was a rather disingenuous change to the wording. (I hope it was accidental.) If you look at WP:BAN you will see that it actually says: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor" (emphasis mine). Cla68 is not banned in the first place. Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, there is nothing wrong with said edit. If he had requested the removal of a BLP violation, would you restore it because he is proxy editing? From the next paragraph: "sock puppetry policy defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Misplaced Pages...." Again, the emphasis is mine, but it does indicate that experienced editors are not meatpuppets. Therefore, I will not self-revert. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't click the link or go read section 2.6 of the Blocking policy (emphasis mine). No words were changed and it applies to blocks, not bans. WP::BAN does not apply here as you said so I don't know why you would be referring to that. Click the link I provided and you will see the exact quote in the blocking policy that prohibits proxy edits. --DHeyward (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh. It seems NE Ent copied WP:BAN over to WP:BLOCK less than a month ago. Accordingly, I've stricken my first objection. However, the very first sentence of that section still states: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block." Cla68 is not evading his block. Furthermore, as Kablammo mentions below and I have mentioned above, the posting in and of itself does not violate policy. Indeed, it is helpful in that it explains that Cla68 will not return while Kevin is desysopped. Finally, WP:IAR applies when policy wonkery occurs. Is anybody harmed by the posting? No. Does it out anyone? No. So no, I will not revert. If you have an issue with this, take it to WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM; however, by so doing, you will generate far more drama than the posting currently does. Indeed, you have created more drama here than the posting incited on Cla68'd talk page. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't policy wonkery. cla is blocked. His statements can be removed by any editor per policy and it is clear that the statement posted is by proxy (i.e. "Will someone post this for me because I am blocked" is an edit by proxy). You reverted that removal even though policy explicitly allows that removal and your justification for defying policy is to say IAR. His statement about conditions for his return is only fueling drama and has no intrinsic value as it has no bearing on whether he should/shouldn't be blocked. Since you haven't cited a policy reason for my in-policy removal, I presume you will have no issue if I remove it per section 2.6 of the blocking policy. Unblock his talk page and he can post anything he wants and he won't need proxies. --DHeyward (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal, thank you for notifying me about this discussion.

I posted Cla's comments after a public appeal was made by him at Wikipediocracy. I was not directed or recruited to do so. Neither the content of the post nor the act of posting violated any Misplaced Pages policy, including those discussed above.

Kablammo (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please show how they are verifiable or productive and your reason outside of cla's request that you do so. He already sent them to arbcom according to the title. There is a reason he is blocked from editing his talk page and posting for him evades that block. ArbCom members can post that material (since they have it) if they believe it is productive. Otherwise that talk page is just a dramafest. --DHeyward (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No. There was nothing against policy in my post, just as the prior postings of excerpts of e-mails from Cla (posts acknowledged by NewYorkBrad) did not violate any policy. But I will not engage further here. If you want an argument, look elsewhere. Kablammo (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you haven't addressed the policy aspects of proxy editing and policy says 3RR doesn't apply, I presume you won't mind if I remove that material per the blocking policy. --DHeyward (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've clarified the 3RR exemption as referring to edits made in violation of the block. You aren't reverting blocked editors—you're reverting two perfectly good-faith editors who posted the content of their own free will. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, why are you interested in removing that post since the text in and of itself does not violate any policy? If it's doing no harm, just leave it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your changes to policy were reverted almost as fast as you made them. You have no consensus to change policy like that and you seem to be backpedaling heavily as you were not aware of the policy. Your belief that it is causing no harm is subjective. I believe that proxy edits like that only stir the drama pot and are not useful or helpful in the discussion. I do not wish to stir it so I have not reverted you even once and took it to your talk page (though it is clear that your edit to policy implies that you believe I would be within current policy for doing so - whence the need for a change). The burden is not on me to prove the posts are harmful, rather, it is on the editors that post material from a blocked editor to explain how they are meaningful and independent of the blocked editor. --DHeyward (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And Victor Yus has re-clarified WP:BLOCK in a better way than I originally did. The policy was never meant to imply that you could revert all edits from someone just because he was blocked. It was intended to apply to block evasion.

As I have linked before, IAR is the policy to apply here. Reverting the post and removing Cla68's message simply serves to silence Cla68 as one of "teh evul" editors. If Cla68 wants, I will post more messages from him to his talk page, assuming they are all within the bounds of policy and subject to my discretion. (For example, I would refuse any trolling, outing, disruptive, or otherwise unhelpful or unnecessary posts.) If you are really concerned about a blocked user making posts, consider such posts as authored by myself or whoever he chooses to post them. If you wish to prevent such an action on my part, take me to WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM. But first ask yourself: Why does Cla68 need to be kept completely silent? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the post is helpful because it lets ArbCom know not to worry about unblocking him if they choose to keep Kevin desysopped. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

• Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors

• News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm

• Featured content: Slow week for featured content

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for adminship

Hi Reaper Eternal,

You are listed at Misplaced Pages:Request an RfA nomination#Editors willing to be asked to nominate a user. This is a formal request for nomination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. If there is anything else I should do or consider, just let me know. All feedback is welcome.

Best. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There is something wrong here

None of those "confirmed" socks of DeFacto have support in any SPI, the best they are is "suspected". Check for yourself. Please correct them per WP:SPI/AI. 198.211.103.38 (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)