Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:09, 27 March 2007

Welcome!

New Comments Go At the Bottom

Old stuff moved to User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2 --Rebroad 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You recent edits, and your AN/I

I have looked over your comment, and the pages in question. I responded at AN/I, and would appreciate you looking in on things. I also notice that durign this process, you've elected to archive your entire talk. While it's your right to archive regularly, I would suggest that in the future, you NOT move entire conversations between you and an editor who you're bringing to AN/I. It looks like you're trying to hide something. As I said a couple hours ago on AN/I, it looks like she's right about things. please return to AN/I for more discussions. ThuranX 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the purpose of replacing them is so that during an ongoing problem, OTHER editors can see what the history of the dispute was, without digging through page's history, switching to the archive, then running through a long set of diffs, as you have made me, and no doubt, others do. What you did was NOT what my user talk note refers to. Look through my history. I've deleted recently, in fact, some hostile commentary from editors who can't AGF and work on a problem. My actual warnings and such are pretty much intact. My archives still hold such things, including my blocks. I remove stuff that goes like 'screw you, i'm smart and your wrong so go away and dont come here', not 3rr warning templates and such. Your removal of such obfuscates the situation. As I said above, doing such makes you look combative, resistant to being warned, and probably guilty of whatever the warning was about. Try to avoid it. ThuranX 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And since you thoroughly misunderstand the warning, I DO in fact mind your copying it. ThuranX 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

--Jersey Devil 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Firstly, I received no warnings regarding my alleged breach of WP:POINT, nor WP:CIVIL. As per blocking policy, I would normally expect to receive warnings based on these guidelines at least before receiving a block. Background info: The warnings I gave were given to a user who had repeated left unwarranted uw-delete warnings on my talk page, despite my repeated explanations that I had not deleted any content (as it was all merged into the merging article), so there were very valid reasons to give them. Also, I understood blocking is not supposed to be used as a punative measure. Considering the warnings I had given Miss Mondegreen were several days ago, and I already said I considered I have made my point, I do not see how this block can be considered a preventative measure.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline per changed reasons below. — physicq (c) 01:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:POINT vote showing my support for this guideline.

To any reviewing administrator: I withdraw my claims of sockpuppetry per below, so if you decline his request for unblocking, please reset his block to the original reason and 24 hours minus time served. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request the reducing of Flunkybiscuits block to whatever Rebroad's block is determined to be. Flunkybiscuits first edit was to Cloud, and the edit Flunkybiscuit made was to wikify the term Nephology, which appears in the first paragraph. Flunkybiscuits then went to Nephology and made only minor formatting edits, which due to an edit conflict where I added more content/removed content where the new formatting was, the edits weren't kept anyway. There's no way at this point to determine definitely that this is in fact a sockpuppet, and the first edit on the account is on the 25th. Also, I've been encouraging/asking/begging Rebroad to add to the Nephology page, so I don't understand the need for a sockpuppet for that. Sockpuppets are allowed as long as they don't do any harm or avoid blocks, and since this isn't a definitive puppet, and hasn't done any harm, I'm requesting that the block be reduced to Rebroad's block time, in compliance with WP:AGF and WP:BITE. And wherever the policy page on puppets is. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow I got pwned there. Does no edit conflict appear if we each choose edit section instead of edit page? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Miss Mondegreen's logic, yet again, beggers belief. On one hand she refers to WP:BITE whilst at the same time suggesting a block on a new user purely because... well, I can't even work out what the justification is. This is becomming extremely tiresome, and is yet another assumption of bad faith. --Rebroad 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the times on the edits. I was suggesting that Flunkybiscuits block be reduced at a time when it was an indefinite block and the account considered a sockpuppet. Since the account was considered to be a sockpuppet at the time, I requested a reduced sentence for it since sockpuppets are allowed as long as they aren't used to negatively edit in various ways. (See Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry ) I was confirming that the sockpuppet had not been editing negatively in any way, and if it was still considered a puppet, then it only needed to be blocked to prevent you from avoiding a block. I was not assuming bad faith, or biting new users, in fact, I was doing the opposite. I'm pleased to know that this user is not considered a sockpuppet, as I thought the evidence was shaky. Sockpuppets generally reveal themselves anyway, so I dislike harsh actions on maybes, becuase if it is just conincidence, and they do happen, it's a pretty bad way for a newbie to be treated. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miss Mondegreen. Thank you for your reply. Please look at it from my point of view. Your suggestion effectively says that you consider there should be a block - i.e. you do not propose an unblock of Flunkybiscuits. This is what I mean by an assumption of bad faith - you are assuming that there is sock puppetry - why else would you not propose an unblock? Why propose keeping a new user blocked who has done nothing wrong? --Rebroad 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

However, I would like to say thanks for at least pointing out the lack of evidence of sockpuppetry - (still don't understand why you proposed a reduction in time rather than an unblock. After all, it would be easy to re-block Flunkybiscuits if it was found I was using her account.) --Rebroad 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a reduced block isn't propsing blocking a user, or even keeping a user blocked. I'll explain.

First--I don't know much about IPs, etc, so I couldn't respond there. I could respond in re the edits and I did.

Second, I could keep this user from being labelled a sockpuppet and being indef blocked--I could take it up a level if I had to, because in this case, an indef block would be a violation of wiki policy. Assuming the worst, second accounts are still allowed and this was as clean a second account as you could get.

What I could say, I did. I commented on the edits. I said I thought the evidence was shaky. I said it made no sense for you to get a sockpuppet to edit Nephology, I wanted you to work on the article. I explained that the edits weren't negative in any way at all including sockpuppet ways. At the time, Flunkybiscuits has three edits. All wikification and formatting ones, none after your block. So, even if this was your account, you weren't using the account for a nefarious purpose or evading a block, so your block would have been reduced and both accounts would have only had the remainder of a 24hr block. While bad if Flunkybiscuits belonged to someone else, it's much less bad than an indef-block, and I've seen accounts I don't think were sockpuppets get indef blocked the first day of existence and that's that. I had no evidence other than edits to argue innocence, and I provided evidence about the edits--that was all I could do.

What it came down to, was I knew that I could help the user get rid of the indef block, whether or not that account was a sockpuppet. I had no idea whether or not the account was a sockpuppet, and even AGF, I had no idea if I could argue or prove innocence, or get an admin to agree to unblock pending proof of sockpuppetry.

Btw, since I'm beginning to acquire a history of defending sockpuppets because I think that certain admins and editors lose the AGF clause as soon as they hear the word sockpuppet, it would have been a stupid thing to do and it might have hurt more than it helped.

It would also be nice if you could look around you and appreciate the good things that people do do, and not always see the things that you think they could have or should have done better.

I do appreciate that you've made an effort at returning to dialogue btw. I've also spoken with Flunkybiscuits, and commented on her talk page, and everything seems to be ok there. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mondegreen

She was trolling on the AN page. See posts titled Runedchozo. If you can provide evidence post at WP:AN/I. Geo. Talk to me 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Flunkybiscuits

Can you explain why your friend (as you claim) started editing at Nephology as her second article -- an article that you are currently in an editing dispute over? The timing of your friend's appearance is highly suspicious in my mind. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually told her not to bother since I was going to raise it as a candidate for deletion, but she was determined to expand it, seemly siding with Miss Mondegreen! It's rather ironic that Miss Mondegreen then undid her edits, so I'm not quite sure who's side she's on now! As you can see Flunkybiscuits created her account before I was blocked, so it certainly wasn't an effort to bypass a block. Regards, --Rebroad 10:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I was rather frustrated by Miss Mondegreen's recent victimisation towards me, and obviously I shared these concerns with the person I live with (aka Flunkybiscuits). It's not too surprising that this was the catalyst to Flunkybiscuits finally biting the biscuit (no pun intended) and creating her own wikipedia account - to see what all the fuss is about! --Rebroad 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(she was already reading wikipedia, she just never had any desire to edit it before yesterday). --Rebroad 10:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with your explanation regarding Flunkybiscuits and have now unblocked her. I'm just about to head home from university so unfortunately I won't be able to review your original block in depth for another 2 hours, but hopefully someone else will get to you before I get home. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT - misinterpreation of the guideline

Warnings are not pointless, blocks are not pointless. Does this mean all warnings and blocks should be banned as per WP:POINT? The warnings I gave for ignoring WP:AGP and WP:CIVIL of course are made to make a point - point being - "Don't continue doing it". Does WP:POINT effectively tie people's hands from issuing warnings? --Rebroad 11:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

blocked for sockpuppetry

Rebroad (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, for some reason I still seem to be blocked, despite the accusation of sockpuppetry being lifted. Please could someone process the unblock? Many thanks.

Decline reason:

I have adjusted the block back to the original time. No prejudice as to whether this user should remain blocked or unblock. Procedural adjust and decline. Original reason was WP:POINT violations as alleged by Jersey Devil. — physicq (c) 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Misplaced Pages:Don't_be_a_fanatic - nice piece of advice... --Rebroad 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

feeling surprisingly calm

Having looked at Miss Mondegreen's edits regarding Person and Nephology I can honestly say that she does seem well intentioned, and I would like to apologise that I got a bit hot under the collar during some of my discussion with her. My listing of things she said that made me feel like I was being attacked were in themselves not supposed to make Miss Mondegreen feel attacked in return. I understand it's difficult to say one is feeling attacked without the accused attacker feeling attacked by that having been said. --Rebroad 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's on First? It took me about fifteen tries to parse that last sentence. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

don't worry

Hi Miss Mondegreen. Regarding this, no need to worry - I personally think a 6 month ban is way out of the question as was surprised by the suggestion so just wanted to see why it was suggested given that I hadn't seen any evidence of it being warranted. I do think that you could be more careful to warn people without getting them annoyed to the point of being uncivil. It takes a lot to make me get as annoyed as I did recently following your initial warning to my talk page, and your method of re-posting the warnings following my deleting them was especially annoying. Given that the deletion of a warning from a user's talk page constitutes confirmation that they have received the warning (according to the policy I read recently) I do think it's unnecessary to keep re-issuing them after each deletion, especially when the user has explained their reasons for disagreeing with the warning. I also think you should be more careful not to issue uw-delete warnings when it's not clear content has been deleted, and especially don't jump in at a uw-delete3 or a uw-move3 when bad faith is not obvious, as it was not in my case. I do not propose to keep a close eye on you for fear of being accused of stalking you, but if I do see you issuing warnings assuming bad faith without good reason I reserve the right to let you or someone else have my opinion on the matter. --Rebroad 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think that you could be more careful to warn people without getting them annoyed to the point of being uncivil.

I don't believe I was uncivil, but I apologize if I was. You put me in a very difficult position. I warned you once, a good faith warning about several edits including Nephology. I knew you saw that, you responded to me. I later left you a no faith assumption warning about Nephology. You ignored that warning and then you ignored the bad faith warning I left. I was trying very hard to communicate with you, and obviously, warning you was probably not going to help, but you blatantly ignored a warning because you thought you know better, put the ball in my court in a very uncomfortable way. I wanted the article to improve, and having a revert war while trying to attract editors was detrimental, and I didn't know how to get through to you--I didn't know what more I could do or explain than I already had. I'd already linked you to half a dozen policies and guidelines and explained about consensus, and every time after I replied to comment you brought up something new and I felt like I was chasing my tail.

I was trying to both help you and the article, and you made both of those things very difficult. You didn't seem to believe that my warnings or anything were valid, but you didn't go to the helpdesk or request an rfc--you went with reverting. I couldn't call in anyone to enforce a warning until you did something blockable, and you didn't continue reverting, so you didn't do anything blockable in that sense, and I didn't want to rake you over the coals for violation of WP:CIVIL or anything else, because I thought escalating the situation would just make things worse. If I involved additional people it would be to deal with an situation that you were escalating and I didn't want that for you. My other problem was, once you started reverting the article again, the reverting, the series of comments, the vandalism to my talk page, all of that happened very quickly, and so I was very busy going from one edit to the other.

"Given that the deletion of a warning from a user's talk page constitutes confirmation that they have received the warning (according to the policy I read recently) I do think it's unnecessary to keep re-issuing them after each deletion..."

Yes, if a user deletes the warning, they obviously got it. (Could you link me to whatever policy you're referring to btw). But I don't know what that has to do with anything. First, remember that deleting warnings is sometimes considered vandalism. A talk page isn't just for communicating with a user, it's for communicating about a user. If every day, a user vandalises but removes the warnings--they could continue to get good faith warnings, instead of the warnings escalating and the user either changing their behavoir or facing blocks.

"I also think you should be more careful not to issue uw-delete warnings when it's not clear content has been deleted"

It's a removal of content warning. Redirecting a page and not putting the content on the page where the redirection points to is effectively removal of content. If you wanted the page to be a redirect, you needed to get consensus. Also, when you posted the merge tag on the nephology article, you didn't post it on the Cloud article. Merge tags need to be posted on both articles/sections that they apply to, the one that they are potentially leaving from and the one that they are potentially going to. This btw, is one way to avoid situations like the one that occured. Nephology didn't have people watching it, but Cloud did, and so by posting the tag on both articles, that gets users from both articles involved.

"especially when the user has explained their reasons for disagreeing with the warning'

You can't just explain your reasons and that's that. Explaining your reasons for disagreeing doesn't change anything. Your move and redirect had been undone by an admin, and when you choose to redo the redirect, I undid it again and warned you. You were going against consensus, and you can't use the fact that you tagged the article and made the change (initially) when no one was watching as previous consensus. If you thought that I was wrong, and that Arthur was wrong, then you try discussion. If you thought I was interpreting policy wrong or that policy fell on your side, and that discussion wasn't going anywhere, you could have asked for mediation or dispute resolution or an Rfc. If you thought the warning was improper you could have gone to the help desk--you had a lot of options, but contuing to ignore warnings was not one of them. If there is a revert war, and both sides explain their reasons for disagreeing, that doesn't mean that a revert war is acceptable. The last version with consensus stays until the dispute can be worked out and new consensus can be found.

"don't jump in at a uw-delete3 or a uw-move3 when bad faith is not obvious, as it was not in my case."

I didn't. You received a good faith warning that covered Nephology, a no faith assumption warning specific to Nephology, and then a bad faith and then a bad faith block impending. Btw, the only template warnings you received from me were uw-delete3 and uw-delete4--I never left you a uw-move anything. The good faith warning was non-template, the no faith assumption was non-template. Your edits themselves might not be in bad faith, I didn't think they were, but ignoring warnings is considered bad faith. You were warned twice before getting a bad faith warning. The bad faith warning was because you ignored those warnings. If you look at the template warnings, even if you start warning someone with a good faith warning, if a user continues to do whatever it is, you move up to the next level. I can't get inside the brain of someone who's editing. There are certain things that are automatically considered certain types of edits, but other than that, it's an assumption of why the person made an edit. But past the first warning, where you assume you know why they edited something, it's not only an assumption of why they made the edit, but an assumption in terms of the warning. Did they realize that they were doing what they had been warned against and do it anyway? They may have done it because they thought they were right, but that's not an excuse. We try to avoid edit wars and all sorts of behavoirs that are precipitated by people thinking that they are right, and that's all that matters. It does not matter if I was wrong--sometimes, the majority will be incorrect. Maybe, this article should be a redirect--maybe it will be at one point. What matters, is you ignored concensus, little though it may have been, you ignored wiki-policy right and left, and when there was disagreement, you chose to argue through reverting, rather than go through proper channels.

"I do not propose to keep a close eye on you for fear of being accused of stalking you, but if I do see you issuing warnings assuming bad faith without good reason I reserve the right to let you or someone else have my opinion on the matter."

You went up the ladder in terms of warnings--good faith, no faith, bad faith, bad faith. There's no where lower to start, there's no much less to assume, there's no greater threshold to give. I've never issued a bad faith warning without reason--when I do patrol for recent changes, I check contribs etc, before warning users. You can check my contributions and if you look closely, you'll notice that there are not a lot of cases where users get a level three warning without a level two. When the user has only vandal edits and calls another editor a poopy pants, I assume that that might have been in bad faith. But it actually takes something like that to get a bad faith warning without having gotten a good faith warning before. Let me repeat for you one last time--I still believe that your edits were in good faith--ignoring warnings, whether you thought they were legitimate or not is not in good faith. There are a myriad of places you can go to ask someone to weigh in--I've listed several. And if you don't know where to go, you can always go to the help desk or post the question on your talk page followed by {{help}} and if the helpdesk can't answer your question or isn't the place to go, they'll point you in the right direction.

In re the proposal

In re the proposal--I'm not worried about it. I posted a follow-up at ANI because I had two concerns really. On your end I'm concerned that you either randomly happened upon it and pursued it, or that you were looking for information on me. While I do believe that it's something you could stumble on--I'm not one of those people that automatically thinks any new user that finds ANI is suspect, it troubles me--probably to some extent, because I didn't know about it myself. On his end, I'm concerned that my criticism of the administrators and editors involved in the case got that kind of response, especially from someone I've had no involvment with and who wasn't involved in the case at all. There were a lot of angry people involved, and most of the comments are mud flinging from various dubious sources. There was very little civility, and I didn't get involved in the side debates. I made very few comments, and I thought, or hoped that I was fairly civil and impartial. That out of all of that I was for some reason the person who was went after in such a way is a bit troubling. I don't know why that proposal was made--I haven't, to this day actually even had any interaction with the user who made the proposal so the whole thing is very strange to me. Btw, at ANI, I linked to all of the RunedChozo discussions, so you can see the entire thing start to finish and my role in it, and if you can glean anything, feel free to let me know what you think. I'm just mystified by it myself. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   13:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)