Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 6 July 2017

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

AN/I

As you closed Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy_CONT) 03:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Some help/advice please

Hi Dennis - I was referred here and you gave me some helpful advice and pointers. I took your advice and tried to build consensus by opening a RFC on the Breitbart talk page about whether the leading paragraph should have the words "far right" in it. My RFC was promptly shut down and labelled disruptive. Now if I have done something wrong again then fine - but if I have then I don't know what and if someone would point out to me exactly what rule I've contravened I'd be able to modify my behaviour. But if I am asking a valid question then I need some help getting the RFC re-opened. Either way, please could you help me. Thanks.--Quadrow (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, the RFC you started was very problematic. You really need to put that on the back burner, and learn how we do things, maybe edit some on less controversial articles and just familiarize yourself before trying to start an RFC. The format was wrong, the wording seemed defensive and wasn't clear. These things take time to learn. I suggest you take the time so you are better prepared next time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

AE Close

For violating an AP2 article's consensus required provision, today Erlbaeko got an indefinite block and Snooganssnoogans got a "closed with no action." This is one in a list of examples of the failure of processes intended to ensure consistent and predictable rule enforcement. I find it extremely concerning. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have no reason to think you are a fool, so I can only guess that you haven't looked closely at the two cases. The circumstances are not the same, so we shouldn't expect the outcome to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The first case looks like a unilateral indef which I think should probably be discussed or lifted. I'm not convinced that the editor's view that reverting a template removal falls outside 1RR restrictions is fair grounds for an indefinite block without any discussion or input from the community. I'm also not sure that talk page comments made during an unblock request fall under DS and it looks to me like that is what the indef was for. Unless it is a repeated pattern I don't think an indef is justified. Editors are not really obligated to agree with an admins interpretation of the 1RR exceptions, they are only obligated for their own actions in making sure that disagreement doesn't become disruptive. Expressing disagreement with the admins about a block is not grounds for an indef, especially since discussions often become heated after a block. I think discussion with the editor about whether reverting the template removal should have fallen within the restrictions would be preferable here. My view is that it doesn't because the exceptions are only for unambiguous vandalism, though reverting the templates is a form of vandalism broadly construed, the revert exceptions do not include this kind of vandalism in the definition. Seraphim System 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee isn't exactly a block happy admin, and that is an unusual block, but it is also an unusual circumstance. The same could be said of CambridgeBayWeather, who has never been one to chase people to block. If you are asking for an explanation under WP:ADMINACCT, then you probably should at their talk pages. The user was clearly warring, GS sanctions apply, and indef doesn't mean forever. My primary point remains, that you can't compare the two cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me, and I'm not saying that was the actual reason, that the indefinite block was based not on the edits by Erlbaeko but by their refusing to abide by the sanctions (1RR) if they were unblocked. Erlbaeko's words look to me that they believe that adding and restoring the POV the tag falls outside of the 1RR. At this point the editor knows that those posting on their talk page agree that reverting the templates removal does count as part of the sanctions. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Indefs are often used when the editor doesn't understand or agree, because they will just go back doing the same thing. and just get blocked again. They are typically reversed (or in this case it would be restored to the 2 day GS) once the editor convincingly states he "gets it". I didn't follow all of it, but the edits I did see, and the block log, made it clear that this was an editor that has had problem with restraint in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. An editor who openly declares they will IAR when it comes to community-imposed sanctions and do as they see fit should not be unblocked until they change that stance, and if the declaration is open ended, a fixed-term block is not appropriate. I expected the indef to be a short one, and did not expect the "digging in" response. And again, as always, any other admin is welcome to revert my action if they disagree with it or believe it is no longer needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I endorse this block. It's very unusual for an editor to openly say they will disregard general sanctions and continue the behavior they were blocked for if the block expires. In that circumstance, a fixed-length block makes little sense. ~ Rob₁₃ 00:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: I agree with others that are some differences. First, I must confess that I have made probably 2–4 edits (0–2 reverts) related to ISIS, broadly construed, without knowing about the existence of ISIS general sanctions. Hence my knowledge of these sanctions is limited, but let me try to explain. (Maybe I should notify myself of these sanctions and log the notification – which is mandatory – but I guess someone could accuse me of gaming the system.)

If you look at GS/SCW&ISIL remedies you'll see that some remedies are very specific. 1RR is mentioned explicitly, and it applies to all related articles, broadly construed. Erlbaeko was first blocked for violating 1RR. Then for "refusing to adhere to discretionary sanctions restrictions", which looks like a DS block, but I don't think it is or the block would not be indefinite and the sanction would need to be logged. Dennis Brown, I think, is arguing that 1RR block was valid because remedies mention 1RR, and "consensus required" restriction is not actionable on ARBAPDS pages because it's not mentioned in ARBAPDS remedies. Politrukki (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:AE

Dennis Brown: I find your close and comments at AE really puzzling. One admin says that "consensus required" remedy is not actionable. Another one says it is. Two admins say that the request does not need action. You say that four admins agree that the request is not actionable. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but "close with no action" ≠ "not actionable". "Close with no action" result would have been reasonable, but this is much worse because ultimately there was no opportunity to correct the record regarding applicability of remedies. The opinion that arbitration remedies are not actionable on edits related to American politics is simply not based on policy. WP:ARBAPDS authorises applying standard discretionary sanctions, which again allow imposing "consensus required" restrictions and more: without standard DS imposing 1RR restrictions could not be enforced. If "consensus required" restriction is inapplicable to pages under ARBAPDS, then it's equally inapplicable to SCW&ISIL, since there's no mention of "consensus required" restriction in SCW&ISIL remedies, but that's beside the point.

I generally hate the consensus restriction, but I still have to abide by the rules. Politrukki (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• The close was "Satisfactory explanation given. Be careful. There may be a case for WP:ARCA as to whether consensus restrictions should apply to Post 32 politics anymore, but that is beyond the scope of WP:AE.". WP:AE decisions are not based on consensus. This means that admins who who take action and close any WP:AE discussion do so unilaterally. Sometimes with others agreeing, sometimes against the majority of participants. My close reflects my observations only. I did not attempt to summarize any consensus as WP:AE is the only administrative board that does not operate on a consensus model. In this particular case, everyone but you agreed that sanctions were not needed. You are free to appeal the close at WP:AE or WP:AN, although I doubt anyone would find anything contentious or controversial in the close. Note that I implied that the discussion regarding "consensus required" should go to WP:ARCA, not WP:AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Proposed Exclusion of Sandbox and Users own TalkPage from T-Bans

I don't see any violation, but I wanted you to be aware of the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Morty

Hi Dennis, I was wondering if this page: User:Morty_C-137/SPI-Case could now be deleted. It appears that Morty C-137 has now retired: and he has not made any edits in almost a week.

Thank you, Cjhard (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Let me look at it a bit closer later today if I can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me just note that he "retired" once before, after his block, and was back two days after the block expired. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That is *exactly* the type of reason why I want to research or wait. Retire banners are not legally binding. I will say this, I do think his "retire" banner is polemic enough to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The main reason for his angry retirement is probably me. He kept trying to get me interested in his claims of being stalked and wikihounded, and I wouldn't follow up to his satisfaction. Thus his anger at "admins". His retirement was July 1; it's only July 6; I think it might be a bit premature to assume he is gone forever. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. In fact if he comes back it will probably be to continue working on that page, and I think Cjhard has a serious COI in asking for it to be deleted. IMO it should only be deleted if it stands idle and un-edited for, say, six months. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)