Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 4 January 2010

Rave92

Hi. You recently blocked Rave92 (talk · contribs) for evading the previous block (that I issued) and blocked a few IPs ostensibly as socks of Rave92. I'm curious how you arrived at this conclusion. The IPs appear to be SPAs created to change Serbian language to Montenegrin. However there are a number of other editors including Sideshow Bob (talk · contribs) who make similar edits. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably should have used {{checkuserblock}}, one of the IPs matched him, one did not, and one I did not have checked. Prodego 17:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could take a look at the unblock request at User_talk:SS.Nolimit. The user appears to be another sock, but I could use your input. Toddst1 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Or comment at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rave92. This conversation is referenced there. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

DC Thread on AN

If you are going to unarchive it, you might want to pull it out of the AN archives, I think edition 208 is the most latest archive. I thought a forceful archive would put an end to it, but it seems we have two admins editwarring over this now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot will archive things, if you must archive a section, use the standard archive templates, and close the discussion. That would allow other's to object, and the uninvolved to view the discussion. You shouldn't need to be manually archiving anything. Prodego 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Myself, admin Tedder, and others have tried, time and time again, to archive with the hat/hab templates this re-re-re-re-rehashing of the same things over and over by DC, but Jehochman seems to think keeping the whole thing going and threatening me is going to solve something. I personally don't think threatening anyone is going to solve anything and he is clearly involved. This entire thing has gotten out of control and it seems no one can raine it in. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Talk Page Side/Top Bar

Would you have any qualms against my using your bar here on your talk page on my talk page? I really like it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, feel free. Prodego 03:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks :) I think I will work on it tonight. I will link you when I finish. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

May I suggest a 1RR restriction on this article, per the climate change sanctions? This would mirror what was done to the IPCC article by the unprotecting admin in that case. Oren0 (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On the removal of sourced statement without consensus - seeking input

I saw your comment on the removal of a sourced quote at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident - what do you propose? Not only was it sourced, we had had two long discussions over that paragraph where the consensus was seemingly that it was notable but the source could be improved. I thus found a better WP:RS and brought up a discussion to have it changed. Instead of doing so, ChrisO removed it completely and warned us all that anything we did would be dealt with under the new sanctions. This is as far as I can see exactly what the community was afraid of would happen - but I do not see how it can be handled more correctly. Looking for suggestions. Troed (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is very simple; Troed has not mentioned the fact that the material that I removed was from a blog (Climate Audit) making claims about third parties who are living persons. That's specifically prohibited by WP:V and WP:BLP, as I have explained here. If an alternative source can be found (and bearing in mind other considerations such as WP:UNDUE), then something similar might be included, but claims from bloggers about third parties are definitely excluded from consideration. As you're aware, WP:BLP states that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -- ChrisO (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi ChrisO. The material was neither unsourced nor poorly sourced, and you were well aware of the results from the talk page (an alternative WP:RS did exist). It's also incorrect to refer to the material as contentious, and thus, as far as I can see, all your references to WP:BLP are in error in this context. The paragraph in question also had a bit of history in the edit log, and you didn't exactly help in building consensus by starting to reference sanctions against editors, in your role as administrator. WP:AGF etc. You seem to be the editor with the most number of edits to pages in this area, and in this case there was no consensus for your action. Troed (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

psb777 sanction

Hi! I see you concur with Ryan but have you read my statement which Ryan could not before he adjudicated. There were only 13 minutes before complaint and imposition of sanction. Since then 1 admin has said too quick, one other participant has said inappropriate and another has been more supportive than that.

My complaint is

undue haste: 13 minutes

Lack of due process: The prior notice could not have said to have been given, it's supposed to be given by an admin

Incorrect result (well I would say that, wouldn't I) but the evidence is not how it is described - read the statements

Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it was that you were making multiple reverts of multiple editors in an area where there was not clear consensus. Prodego 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to put words in your mouth Prodego, but you wrote yourself at the talk page in response to Dave souza that you could not find consensus for deleting the paragraph (which Dave started out doing) that Paul later reverted back. Or I'm misunderstanding something which I'm constantly afraid of doing ... Troed (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)