User talk:Light current: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:56, 27 January 2007 editLight current (talk \| contribs)30,368 edits →Your Saying of the Day: space out man!← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:58, 27 January 2007 edit undoLight current (talk \| contribs)30,368 edits →Your Saying of the Day: punctNext edit →
Line 39:		Line 39:

	I have noticed that when you are blocked, your contributions to your talkpage increase in frequency.		I have noticed that when you are blocked, your contributions to your talkpage increase in frequency.
	:So what? Is it surprising at all when Im ~~reponding~~ to unfair blocking ?--] 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)		:So what? Is it surprising at all when Im responding to unfair blocking ?--] 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	Moreover, the tone of the posts appear to become more and more agitated - usually at the admins in general or one in particular. Your current saying is a perfect example of what not to do when you are on a block.		Moreover, the tone of the posts appear to become more and more agitated - usually at the admins in general or one in particular. Your current saying is a perfect example of what not to do when you are on a block.

	:I must express my self. I dont believe I have named anyone. ~~but~~ if the cap fits....--] 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)		:I must express my self. I dont believe I have named anyone. But if the cap fits....--] 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	You will argue that it isn't an attack on anyone and it implies nothing, a bit like StuRat's defence of his equally inadvised comment that started this. (As an aside, have you ever notice how it is always StuRat that initiates disputes, but it is always you and THB that end up being blocked? Ever feel you are being used?)		You will argue that it isn't an attack on anyone and it implies nothing, a bit like StuRat's defence of his equally inadvised comment that started this. (As an aside, have you ever notice how it is always StuRat that initiates disputes, but it is always you and THB that end up being blocked? Ever feel you are being used?)

Revision as of 22:58, 27 January 2007

Please post new TOPICS to the TOP of my talk page (but below this notice). For adding comments under existing headings, use contents box to get to the right section

Currently blocked for advising another on how not to get blocked (how ironic) 8-((

Please use headlines when starting new topics -----------Thank you---------

Saying of the day: Saying anything at all could get you blocked- remind you of anything

Here's my edit count.

Your Saying of the Day

I have a horrible feeling of déjà vu here, LC. But I'm going ahead anyway because I want to give you the chance to reconsider before it earns you an extension to your block.

Very magnamamous of you.

I have noticed that when you are blocked, your contributions to your talkpage increase in frequency.

So what? Is it surprising at all when Im responding to unfair blocking ?--Light current 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the tone of the posts appear to become more and more agitated - usually at the admins in general or one in particular. Your current saying is a perfect example of what not to do when you are on a block.

I must express my self. I dont believe I have named anyone. But if the cap fits....--Light current 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You will argue that it isn't an attack on anyone and it implies nothing, a bit like StuRat's defence of his equally inadvised comment that started this. (As an aside, have you ever notice how it is always StuRat that initiates disputes, but it is always you and THB that end up being blocked? Ever feel you are being used?)

I dont agree.

Godwin's Law not withstanding, your comment is no more acceptable than saying "TenOfAllTrades is acting like a Nazi". Now, if that is truly not what you meant, I would strongly urge you to understand that that is exactly how it reads to me - and i guarantee you it is how others will interpret your intent. Therefore, I urge you to replace it before you receive another block for something you didn't do or mean. It is in your power to avoid these "misunderstandings", rather than to have to complain about them afterwards. So, please, change that saying before someone less adverse to blocking than I reads it. Rockpocket 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many totalitarian and communist regimes that act in censorial this manner. Pick one.--Light current 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also reading your 'message of the day' as essentially calling TOAT a nazi. This is unacceptable, and I'd like to offer you a final opportunity to change it operating under the assumption that you A: Didn't mean that, and B: Didn't realize that was a reasonable interpretation of your message. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not calling TOAT anything. To assume so is being hyper sensistive. Chill baby!.--Light current 22:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed per req

Favourites for RfC

Casual Blockings -- Serious investigation needed by ArbCom

Im starting to think that , since no one seems to be taking me seroiusly on this point, a full RfA is going to be needed against all casual blocking Admins to sort out the actual policy once and for all.

Basically this is a total abuse of power and flouting of the rules and guidelines on blocking. How long are these Admins going to be allowed to get away with these unjust and damaging action? $:-(

retrieved from archive--Light current 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SCZenz Offer of help

Do you need help filing a request for arbitration? You can certainly do so, even while you're blocked, although it will be easier if you wait until your block expires. I'll be glad to assist with any technical issues in setting up the request. -- SCZenz 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, for a slightly less formal venue, you might consider a request for comment. I'd be happy to help with that too. -- SCZenz 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think RfC would be best initially. THen if no satisfactory out come RfA 8-|--Light current 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait until someone lifts my latest unjust block., or it expires. --Light current 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, once you're unblocked, if you need help on how to post an RfC, remind me I said I would. For clarity, I'm not going to support your position on this RfC; I believe my recent blocks of THB were justified, and I've not reviewed your block in detail but it sounds like an acceptable judgement call by TenOfAllTrades. However, administrators are responsible to the community, so as long as you behave civilly you have every right to request an outside look at our actions. Your first step, by the way, would be to read Misplaced Pages:Request_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users. -- SCZenz 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And the rest of the instructions are here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. Again, remind me if you need further assistance. -- SCZenz 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not necessarily talking about your block of THB, although that may come into the remit. Since you have not been responsible for the large number of RD related blocks, I thought of leaving you out of it actually! Up until today, you seem to have used your amin powers very responsibly and conservately, so I dont think I will be including you in the list. --Light current 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you've been very angry with me at points, and I imagine you might be angry again at what I say on the RfC if you file one; my advice to you, in this and in fact for everything on Misplaced Pages, is to keep more of an even keel. I'd also like to suggest, now that I've offered to help you with an RfC, that you consider not filing one; my best guess is that the community will generally support the administrative actions taken in regard to you, so it won't particularly make you happier. But it's up to you. -- SCZenz 19:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell the truth and shame the Devil. So will I and other victims--Light current 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another way?

If there was another way to prevent over zealousness on the part of some Admins, I would take it. But any comments I make just get me blocked, threfore a more formal approach is necessary. I believe most Admins are acting outside the blocking policy. I (and others)intend to show that is the case. Lets get it all out in the wash once and for all! --Light current 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I blocked THB

Since you asked... It all started when StuRat made an inappropriate joke on the reference desk. Justanother called him on it, and StuRat was willing to let it go (if not to admit the intention of the joke). Then THB began giving Justanother trouble about it, as in this edit; I responded by asking THB not to make further arguments of the "you can't prove what he meant" type, as when things are sufficiently obvious it's just time-wasting and game-playing. He responded, shall we say, rather negatively, and I warned him that I would block him if he played any more games. That's when he started swearing at me. It's pretty clear he was trying to taunt me into blocking him, but frankly I think he got away with enough silliness for one day. -- SCZenz 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I shall have to look at it more closely 8-|--Light current 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in asking someone to apologise for an erroneous statement. After all, admins ask us to do it on poain of blocking quite often! 8-|--Light current 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do so, LC. But please try and resist getting involved (as I have), its not in anyone's interest. Rockpocket 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take Rockpocket's advice not to get involved. This sort of remark is exactly what he was talking about. You're stirring the pot just so you can take cheap (and poorly aimed) shots, rather than letting the situation die down. Please don't try to goad any of the parties.

This is your last warning, and I will block you if you continue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt continue but you still blocked me. Hows that?--Light current 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Im trying to advise THB on his own talk page of how to avoid future situations.--Light current 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rockpockets Comments

I, personally, wouldn't have blocked you for this LC, but I can totally understand why ToaT did considering your past record of synergistic agitation with THB. The bottom line is StuRat is not stupid. He knew fine well the unsavory inference that would be drawn his comments. Therefore, irrespective of the right or wrongs of removing comments from RD, this is the worst possible test case for you and THB to get behind. There is no merit in it. I understand that you wanted to express your opinion on the wider subject, but it was totally inevitable that this would happen - which was why I tried to advise you from getting involved. I actually think it would be a good idea for you to open an RfC on this, as I think it might demonstrate that this isn't a small group of admins on a crusade against you, but that the community at large supports these actions. Of course, I could be wrong and the community may think you have been victimised. In that case, the admins will certainly take that onboard. Rockpocket 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Synergistic agitation? WTF does that mean? Any examples?--Light current 20:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant that both your and THB's previous run-ins with administrative intervention have - to a greater or lesser extent - involved each other. I think there is a feeling that THB, StuRat and yourself bring out the worst in each other (so to speak). I could be wrong, of course, but the record speaks for itself. The only reason you were blocked was because you got involved in THB's clash with SCZenz. The only reason THB was blocked because he got involved in StuRat's clash with Justanother. It was the opinion of the blocking admins that both of you were purposely agitating the situation. Rockpocket 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm blocking for mutual victim support actions? See that just one example of acing outside Admin authority.--Light current 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SCZ steps in

On the contrary, labelling yourselves as "victims" and mutually supporting each other is a guarenteed way to lose touch with the standards of the rest of the community. If you feel you've been treated unfairly, you should ask neutral users to step in. -- SCZenz 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All in good time SCZ, all in good time. Meanwhile carry on the good work, you are not involved.--Light current 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is, you should have done it earlier. It was precisely your interaction with THB, that allowed you to feel mutually "victimized" and to ignore feedback from other quarters, which got you into this mess. Anyway, I'm glad to see you're getting neutral feedback now. -- SCZenz 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To which particular mess do you refer? The latest one blocking by TOAT?--Light current 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket not to be investigated

No Im actually opening an RFC on ALL over zealous Admin actions related to these pages and associated user pages. I havent looked at your block record yet, so Im not sure if ill include you! 8-|--Light current 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm just looked. It appears you too have been using your powers responsibly.I shall therfore NOT be including you in the RFC.--Light current 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, I see. Well, thats a pretty ambitious scope for a single RfC. My block record is pretty sparse, I'm afraid, so I'm probably not the best example for such a class action RfC. However, if you think I have abused my tools then I do encourage you to include me. As you have pointed out previously, i'm relatively new to adminship and would welcome constructive criticism from the community. Rockpocket 20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you are new. THere is no point in including your actions as they all seem ok to me.--Light current 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Please understand that you will be blocked every time you choose to take cheap shots and play dumb in the future rather than taking sensible, polite advice and warnings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well TOAT that is truly unbelievable! I was trying to expalin in THBs language the inadvisability of making comments that could be misinterpredted when I seem to have fallen into the same trap. I would however like to say that this extreme siensitivity on the part of the Admins is disruptive to WP. If one cannot say anything without fear of blocking, then what is there to say? CENSORSHIP RULES OK? 8-((

Prophecy come true

It does seem as though the whole Admin team has become extremely excited (if not frenzied) and trigger happy over very innocent remarks that they are happy to use themselves against editors. (like trolling -a word I dont like, etc). Solution? Depends whether you want to be blocked every few days for nothing! 8-)--Light current 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC) --Light current 17:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Acoustic suspension

The article you wrote, Acoustic suspension, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles. A stub marker or other template doesn't count - please put in an actual category in the article. Eli Falk 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on selective blocking

What a good idea! General blocking is such a blunt instrument and acts more as punishment than a preventative measure.

Advantages

Protects the specific pages form vandalism/disruption
Does not stop user from contributing elsewhere (ie minimising punishment effect)
Does not piss off user as much

Disadvantages

Needs new coding to implement (possibly)

Comments

The only way editors currently get partially "blocked" in this fashion is when ArbCom bans them from specific articles. It's self-policing, really; if an editor breaches the ban, they simply get blocked for poor behavior. Otherwise, I'm not sure who would do the blocking-per-article; who would determine that an editor is bad news on one article but not elsewhere? Occasionally we have informal arrangements, such as when an admin tells a troublesome editor "stay away from this article or I'll block you outright for disruption"; the community has generally supported such unilateral bans, and they often work, in my observation anyway. Implementing the selective blocking you like isn't hard; it would just require adding a field to the user record that contains a list of article titles that they're blocked from, no big deal. --jpgordon 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah OK. But do we need ArbCom to decide on this? Could it not be done by say 2 or more Admins agreeing to block an individual in this manner. I certainly would have preferred to have been blocked only from the pages where I was accused of disruption etc, and allowed to carry on contributing elsewhere. Im sure this would be a much better form of protection of pages and also not seen as a punishment for the editors concerned. It would also I feel lead to less resentment from those who are temporarily blocked.--Light current 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues involved. One is whether admins have the authority to direct a user not to edit a particular article, as a lesser sanction to being blocked altogether. The consensus seems to be that in appropriate circumstances they do, although the "community sanctions" proposal was a little bit controversial and you, Light current, were pretty much the last person I expected to be arguing in favor of a new power for administrators. :)

The second question is whether the software should be rewritten to enable selective blocks to be enforced automatically. With regard to that aspect, the rule seems to be that ArbCom does not have authority to direct the Developers (who actually write the code) to do something, as acknowledged in the so-called Giano case, when the ArbCom voted unanimously that a particular record in a log should be expunged "if developers cooperate," and the lead developer posted to the Workshop with the comment "Absolutely unacceptable.... Will not be fulfilled" and it wasn't (at that time, anyway). Bear in mind also that the Mediawiki code is written not just for this English Misplaced Pages but for hundreds of other projects, so they can't make a change based on one project's input alone. Having said that, it would be a good button to have; for example, I've often wished that 3RR blocks could be just from the article being edit-warred over rather than the whole site. Hope these thoughts are helpful, or at least coherent. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if Admins have the power to block editors from all WP, I dont see selective blocking for a defined period as a particular ethical problem. I am arguing in favor because it is the lesser of the two evils (for the editor concerned); ie better to be blocked just from the pages where you are percieved to be causing trouble rather than WP as a whole! Remember Im not all bad -- It just seems that way (sometimes)!

The implementation problems I leave to others with regard to whether the idea is practicable. I have benn told twice it can be done easily and twice that it cant!--Light current 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My question would be: why would an editor who has been disruptive enough to warrant a block from one page, be trusted to not be disruptive on another page? Rockpocket 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR would be a good example. Sometimes someone who loses perspective on a particular issue and needs a breather (that's what 3RR is for, after all) might still be able to perform good edits elsewhere. -- SCZenz 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes problems with a particular editor (like me) tend to occur on one page I feel. For instance, I have temporarily 'blocked' myself from the RDs to see if situation improves without me. But, I can still edit other pages which keeps me occupied and takes my mind off the other issues. I can also contribute to policies and present other suggestions for improving the WP process--Light current 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) well...thing is, a reasonable, well-intentioned editor acting in good faith can likely be counted on to behave elsewhere if told not to edit one problematic article, so the actual blocking mechanism isn't necessary; and the other sort of editor will be a pain on other articles, regardless of whether they are banned or actually blocked from one article, so I'm not sure how selective blocking would really improve things on the whole. --jpgordon 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree that the other sort of editor will necessarily be a pain on other articles. But thats just my opinion. I dont know if there are any statsitcs on 'disruptive editors' and how far they extend their disruption in any one period. You would probably know better than I. 8-)--Light current 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess a good metric would be "how many editors that have been banned from specific articles on ArbCom have continued as 'good editors' elsewhere, how many have become troublesome elsewhere, and how many have simply stopped editing anything at all?" I don't know the answer to that -- it would be an interesting little research problem for someone that wants to wade through every old arbitration case. --jpgordon 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now if I wanted to take this idea further, where would be the best place to air it? Village pump?--Light current 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess. Policy, probably? --jpgordon 17:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts for you

Light current, I've been following the discussion on this page and on the noticeboard. I know you have made real contributions to the encyclopedia and that Misplaced Pages is important to you. I also know you've been warned about various things by several different administrators. You're sad the possibility that things might change or you might not be able to edit any more.

What I would like you to do is ask yourself this. Why do you think that a number of different editors and administrators are asking you to change your behavior. Please indulge in the assumption that all the people who have criticized you have come to the good-faith conclusion that some of your comments are problematic, rather than conspired to harass and drive away a long-time editor. I know you feel put upon sometimes, but honestly, I don't think that a group of people conspired on- or off-Wiki to gang up on User:Light current.

Ask yourself, Why have these people, who are also long-time and valued contributors, come to the conclusion that there are things about Light current's contributions and comments need to change? Are any of these concerns legitimate, do you think? What can you do to help satisfy them?

You don't need to respond to any of this on-Wiki if you don't care to, but if you introspect about what I have just written for a little while it might help you to "assess your options" as you put it above.

Anyway, pardon my putting my thoughts and questions here, but I hope they will be considered "nourishing" enough. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I must have written this at the same moment you were writing your goodbye post on the noticeboard. If you are leaving, then thank you for the contributions you made while you were here, and I wish you well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is farewell rather than goodbye. Wikibreaks are a good thing and yours is well earned. Come back when you're tanned, rested, and ready. And thoroughly chilled. Regards, Durova 02:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A mere respite!--Light current 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you really are Steve McQueen, i'd like to see you riding that bike with a big smile very soon. I'm sure in this rerun he'll escape. David D. (Talk) 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I always have a ~~wicked~~ big smile (except when I dont)

Those who ignored the instructions - please put your posts here

Posts placed here may not recieve replies and may be deleted. Please do not complain afterwards. You have been told! 8-)

Be specific

Light Current, in this edit, are you saying that Misplaced Pages is like Nazi Germany? Or another regime? Please be specific. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)