Misplaced Pages

Resolved; user indef blocked by another admin. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Imposter account

Hi Coffee, re: this reversion, the user is an obvious imposter of K6ka. I've reported to UAA, but if you're on duty, maybe you could handle it? Thx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Got 'em. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. I'm late to the game! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Emmay Entertainment & Motion Pictures LLP

I cannot see why you removed the speedy tag from this article and replaced it with a PROD. It's a classic db-corp, created by a SPA who is probably associated with this thoroughly insignificant company. Are you surprised that the PROD was removed without explanation? I thought not. I've replaced the speedy.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the page, but next time try to be less condescending. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll do my best, but I'm still mystified. And you left no explanation or note on my talk page. I'd accept a judgement that the article should be taken to AfD, but PRODing an article like this is pointless since a dollar to a donut the page creator will remove it. Or an IP will.TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because there's no requirement that I do so. (referring to a talk page notice) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I call that condescending.TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just factual. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So, you made a crap call and are now getting all precious about it. You know what you did was wrong.TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Kaptinavenger

Since this user is blocked, would it be okay if I removed the LONG cut and pasted talk page conversations which they placed on their user page? I'd leave the userboxes and anything that is not a content discussion and, of course, the action can be reverted. I don't often edit user pages so I wanted to check it out with you first. Thanks! Liz 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Liz: Please feel free to do so. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Coffee. Liz 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Om Swami

Hi Coffee, Many thanks for declining the speedy deletion of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/Om_Swami. Can you please direct me as to what I can do to improve this page further so that the other tags currently on the article can be removed. Srihariom (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Road to Korogwe, with the Usambara Mountains. Tanzania.jpg

Hi Coffee. The file that you deleted locally was tagged on Commons. Please have a look. --Leyo 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Leyo: I've transferred the deleted source information to Commons. Thanks for the heads up! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But it wasn't visible at all, that the file had originally been uploaded to en.wikipedia. I thus added the original upload log. --Leyo 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Leyo: Touché. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:ANI

Disagreeing with you is not a crime. I'm entitled to my opinion. Caden 23:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Caden: I would certainly hope not; quite the dystopian state that would be. And, yes you are, but it just so happens that your opinion doesn't mean jack shit if it's in conflict with our policies. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion was not in conflict with our policies. He was involved. Nothing you say will change my opinion on that. Caden 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here and have an absolutely pointless debate with you. You asked for a block review, and you got one. The end. Now quit harassing me, or you'll soon be joining thewolfchild. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Corbett at AE

Hi, I'm not particularly familiar with AE. Was there really consensus for this close? And should an admin who commented in the discussion be permitted to close it also? - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No consensus at AE is required to enforce the WP:ARBGGTF remedy, as any uninvolved administrator is able to do such enforcement at his own discretion. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks. No point in AE then, really. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Sitush, given that the entire rationale for ArbCom is "sometimes consensus leads to no useful outcome because you have angry people on both sides", that is entirely the point in AE. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. The same thing actually happened the last time he was blocked for AE. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No probs. I'm disappearing for 72 also. And Ironholds' barnstar below is sick. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	heh. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Ironholds:, if this barnstar is for the AE closing and blocking of Eric Corbett, then you should be ashamed of yourself. This sort of grave-dancing is juvenile in the extreme, and if you had left a diff showing proof of such, then you would now be sitting on the outside of a block right now. If I am mistaken in my assumptions, then I apologize; but I think it unlikely that I need to. — Ched :  ?  19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd hate to fail to hit the bar of maturity reached by a user who waxes lyrical on an editor's association with firearms and conspiracy-theorises. To be more clear, however; this is indeed for the blocking of Eric. And it's not because wooo, grave dancing - it's because I can count on one hand the number of administrators actually willing to block Eric, and having any editor who is block-proof, regardless of who that editor is, swiftly becomes tiresome. I think Coffee demonstrated a lot of courage by making the block; this barnstar is for that courage, whatever it was demonstrated through. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Unblock clarification requested

I'm very surprised to see that you unblocked Rationalobserver. Have you notified Ddstretch? I'm about to request a review at AN, so consider this a notification. I've been offline for a few days and only now working my way through diffs but there has been a lot of disruption that began with me a week ago. Victoria (tk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoriaearle: Blocks are intended to be preventative not punitive. As the editor made a statement that seemed to show they understood why they were blocked and would not repeat the behavior, it was perfectly rational for me to unblock them. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of disruption, I have to question that. In the least I'd request that you notify Ddstretch who seems to have been following the sequence. I won't bother to bore you with it here since you've made up your mind and opening another drama board thread will be just that, so I'll leave it with your opinion that your action was rational and I'll disengage again. Thanks for the reply. Victoria (tk) 19:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoriaearle: If the user continues any form of disruption, believe me, I'll be the first to block them. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Set your calendar, then. She appears to last approximately six or seven days until she falls back into bad habits again. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, Viriditas: Roger that. If I miss her starting to be disruptive again, please feel free to notify me immediately and I'll take care of it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that an Ddstretch (who will be overwhelmed with pings) already made that decision based on following the evidence closely. The AE thread was less than 24 hours old, I would have added relevant evidence had I been around and was just reading through it, and it looks as though you've undone a good block under the pretense of political correctness - unblocking a woman and blocking Eric Corbett. It only perpetuates unnecessary drama. Victoria (tk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, The unblock had nothing to do with her being a woman, or political correctness. I was simply going through WP:RFUB as usual, and happened across her unblock request which I treated as I do all unblock requests. This was in no way a judgment against Ddstretch's administrative judgment, merely an accepted unblock request based purely on its own merits. Like I said, if the behavior that got her blocked happens again I'll be the first to re-block. Re-blocks are cheap, as they say. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am slightly surprised that you did not discuss this with me, since section 8.1 of WP:BP states "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." As far as I can tell, the editor in question has edited out the protests she made that she had done nothing wrong less than a day previously (and the subsequent "egging on" by Knowledgekid87), and had, in fact, gone on to make insulting comments on another user's talk page for which she had also been warned (not by me). My block was preventative and done in full knowledge of a continued pattern of bad behaviour that had been pointed out to her previously, and which had resulted in an admission of her bad behaviour and an undertaking to not do it again. Furthermore, she has a history of problems with Eric Corbett, and in the opinion of many had gone to an article to edit it and ask Eric for help in full knowledge that she had tried to get him blocked previously. When he, unsurprisingly, politely declined, she launched the attacks that I quoted. Given her inability to put down the stick, I would have preferred to see more than, at most, one day in between her protestations of having done nothing wrong, and her admission of guilt, etc. The two weeks were preventative because of the cycle of repentance and re-emergence of problems that happens. However, what is done is done, and we just have to wait and see if yet more disruption now happens, even for a small amount of time, until action is taken next. I just think you accepted the unblock request a little too quickly, given my knowledge of what has happened in the past with her. But, as I said, time will tell now.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DDStretch: I truly hope there's no hard feelings here, I just moved forward in the same motion that I'm used to when I made this judgment. As she promised to not continue her disruptive behavior, I'd say a 6 month block would be in order if the same type of behavior comes back. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all. By the way, you may see the beginnings of more stirring up problems on Knowledgekid87's talk page. And I would not be at all surprised if some "revenge" action began. Ok. It is too late here in China, and I should have been asleep many hours ago.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger that. Also, I've formally warned Rationalobserver in accordance with our discussion here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

I applaud your efforts to remediate the recent drama-mongering and pot-stirring, and I suggest that you add User:EChastain to your watch list, as this "account" has been doing a great deal of pot-stirring during the last couple of weeks. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pot stirring? well Rationalobserver you and the militant and trouble making wimmin of this project are the ones to recognize that. I applaud you. Why not block me too Coffee? You can really get your name in lights then. Giano (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Giano: I have no idea who you are, but if you make a comment like that again I will gladly fulfill your request. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Coffee - Consider reviewing Giano's recent edits. E.g., . EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Giano has now been formally warned. Thank you for the heads up EvergreenFir. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Coffee, you have not a clue what you've stepped into. Not even a bit. The problem is that it's the content editors who leave, the ones who actually build the encyclopedia, the ones who keep heads down while everyone else plays games around here. Victoria (tk) 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria: It's not just content creators that are leaving, administrators are as well. We're down to less than 600 active admins right now, and that's depressing when we have to look over 4.7 million articles and tens of thousands of editors per day. Someone being known in one arena of this site, (as I imagine Giano is from your comment), does not allow them to cross severe lines on personal attacks. Period. I'm not afraid to block anyone if I'm forced to. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know Giano, but it's an assumption of bad faith on your part that I was referring to him in my comment. And that you don't have a clue is worrying. Anyway, I've had enough. Victoria (tk) 21:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria: In what way is it an assumption of bad faith? Your reply was directly underneath my reply to Giano... it seemed at the time like you intended for the comment to be taken that way (as our previous discussion was in the thread above this one). I definitely wasn't trying to make you out as a bad person somehow. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Looks like we lost another excellent female editor - hard to take, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Victoria was saying it is frustrating to content writers when tendentious editing occurs and wastes all of our time. In some cases, the content editors snap, say something mildly (to very) antagonistic and get punished for it, and the tendentious editor makes a show of being sorry for their actions and gets off. The cycle repeats again a few days/weeks later. Giano's comments were inappropriate. I see how Eric's comments could be taken that way, although I disagree with the interpretation. Yet rationalobserver was extremely tendentious in the last few days, and she's unblocked now after a show of being sorry. This is a scenario that has been played out many times before (not necessarily with this cast of characters), with no sign that the problem will ever be solved. So content editors retire. I was gone for a few years because of the same scenario. Victoria has decided to leave now; I considered it this morning - I wasted a day yesterday dealing with RO's nonsense when I had planned to be doing the final polishing on an article ready to go to FAC. It's not your fault, per se - Misplaced Pages doesn't have a good way to deal with this type of problem other than waiting it out. Admins just don't generally have the bandwidth (or sometimes the content background) to follow all of the rabbit holes. I do appreciate your promise to block rationalobserver for six months if the tendentious editing recurs. That is sending a message that is direly needed and is a big step most admins aren't willing to take. Given past behavior, I believe it is only a matter of time until that block becomes necessary (although I do sincerely hope to be surprised). Karanacs (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I obviously cannot speak for Coffee, but IMO, I was unblocked because I promised to stop the disruptive behavior, not because I showed remorse. I'm sorry I wasted your time yesterday, I honestly thought there was an issue with Rarick's book, and I honestly thought that RSN was where we go to sort that type of stuff out. I wasn't being intentionally difficult, as you seem to think. I know better now, and I won't repeat the negative behaviors that frustrated you and others. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK queues empty; next main page promotion about a minute from now

Coffee, I noticed that you've been promoting DYK prep sets to the queues lately. Right now, the queues are empty, and the next promotion is supposed to happen about a minute from now. If you're available, could you please take a look? (I did leave a message on Crisco 1492's talk page, but he hasn't had a contribution for many hours, so I think he won't see this in time.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

One sec, I'll be right there. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that you've done it. (I'm restoring your message, which that IP had deleted, so this thank you makes more sense in context.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Haha... No problem. My apologies for missing the queue not being filled. I've been trying to stay on top of that but I got caught up in some ridiculousness today. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for protecting my page, and thanks for unblocking me. I won't make you look bad by repeating the negative behavior. I promise! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Some good can come

Rationalobserver can offer some hope she'll not "repeat the negative behavior" by accepting the help generously offered by jbmurray on his talk page after she brought an argument there started elsewhere. He felt she didn't understand the writing of historical narrative. He generously offered to teach her, taking her persistent questions seriously. He gave her something to read and to discuss with him on Monday, Historiograph and Historical Narrative If Rationalobserver accepts his help and returns on Monday to discuss on his talk page, it would improve her credibility and attone somewhat for the harm she had done. She wasted many good editor's time in the last few days by her recklessly posting on so many talk pages, article talk pages and noticeboards, and her repeated personal attacks on good faith editors like Victoriaearle. (Page now deleted) A positive could come of all this if Rationalobserver corrects some of her misunderstandings about article writing by accepting jbmurray's offer. This show of faith on her part will help her and also improve the encyclopaedia. EChastain (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver: I know you and EChastain seem to be of conflicting personalities, but would you accept this idea? It truly would show some very good faith on your part, and I'm sure it would ease a lot of the conflict surrounding you at this time. With hope, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already researched the topics Jbmurry suggested, and I admit that the Rarick source is reliable. There are; however, competing schools of thought in that regard, and I will say that I am not alone in my apprehension to use histories that fill in the blanks with assumptions. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, jbmurray offered to discuss with you these "competing schools of thought" and ways to evaluate them. I suggest that you forgo the "go it alone approach" and accept the jbmurray's offer, since he's an expert FAC writer and you clearly misunderstand crucial sourcing issues. To unilaterally declare you are right seems to me a repetition of your past behaviour and doesn't appear to bode well. What do you think, Dr Blofeld, Karanacs, Victoriaearle? I'd appreciate your input here. EChastain (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Echastian, please stop pinging all day long. I didn't say they were wrong, I said there are competing schools of thought, which jbmurray will not deny. Please stop following me everywhere I go, and please stop stirring the drama. You are beating the dead horse, as these dramas are now over, except that you keep mentioning them. Please leave me alone. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

???

Hi Coffee. I never had the pleasure before. Do you have a WP arbiter function, or did smb. appeal to your mediation, or how come we met now?

What war? With whom and on what? Please let me know, otherwise it's "trial in absentia" and makes little sense :-)

If it's about Nemtsov: please check the "History" page. Different people had different opinions, I went along with all rational criticism. Never just undid without trying to adapt to other editors' meaningful objections. Right before seeing your appeal (or how is it called in WP lingo?), I had just adapted somebody's edit which had adopted my (!) change, but had taken it a step further, exactly in a way that had already troubled others. So, far from me to go into pingpong games of do-and-undo.

If it's about Seaman: I just hope you're not kidding.

Too much confusion.

Have a nice weekend, Arminden (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Arminden: Boris Nemtsov is the article I'm warning you about. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And 1) did you check the "history"? 2) We never met before as far as I can remember, and certainly not on "Nemtsov". How come it's you sending this warning? How does this come about? The first Q is far more relevant. I don't think there's any object to all this.Arminden (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

ANI discussion

Someone's started an ANI thread about you, but hasn't informed you himself. Just a friendly heads-up. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am considering to undo your block, Coffee, as an error. Please comment on the AN/I thread. Thank you. Jehochman 12:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

One important thought: there are a lot of banned editors who hang around waiting for dramas where they can inject some lulz. Don't assume that an IP who jumps into a conversation is one of the prior participants. Often its just a troll who's been lurking. Jehochman 13:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

One more important thought: when blocking for personal attacks or harassment, make sure to leave diffs so any reviewing admin can see what happened. In this case the record was not clear, and absent your explanations, as the unblock reviewing admin, I had to unblock because there was no clear justification. I did look through Giano's recent contribution history and saw nothing more serious than him calling somebody a "shit stirrer", which is a bit crude, but isn't personal. Giano will probably be upset and leave a lot of criticism for you. I recommend that you not respond. Just go for a walk or have a glass of wine and just let it pass by. There's no reason for good faith contributors to get sidetracked with disputes like this. Jehochman 13:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against you personally Coffee, but when I see somebody blocking Eric these days I do wonder the real reason behind it, and then I see further blocks of people who criticize you without showing any real evidence for why you blocked them in your notice and then some further comments in which you did seem to imply sockpuppetry. Whatever you think about Eric, Giano or anybody here you also need to realise that no editor is infallible and you can upset people by making heavy handed blocks and accusations, even if not intentional. Giano is convinced you believe he is that ip who made those comments to Knowledgekid. Bishonen on the otherhand believes you did not mean to imply the ip was a sock of Giano. Whatever the case, in future if you're going to block people you really do need to provide proper evidence and if you're going to accuse people of sockpuppetry, even ip addresses, I think you should do a checkuser on them and prove it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted brake failure article

Dear coffee, could you provide me with the original items that were in this article as i wold like to retain them for my own purposes. thanks Engineman (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a cup, yourself

24.151.10.165 (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

24.151.10.165: Thanks, I definitely could. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Flashbacks

Someone pinged me off-site to make me aware of the ANI thread. Oh, the memories. Same players, same complaints, same defenses. It's like going back to high school and oddly finding your old classmates are still there, sticking with the same clicks, fighting the same rivals, and all members of the same clubs. Where's the evolution? I expected there to have been grand improvements to the site, its policies, and the community after so many years. So sad to see that it hasn't changed. Lara 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)