| Revision as of 03:59, 21 April 2018 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:JzG/Archive 153) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:38, 22 April 2018 edit undoDrFleischman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,325 editsNo edit summaryTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| ::::::::::Well, I was just mostly switching gears to friendly banter. No hard feelings and all that. If anything, the one advantage to three of the four of those, is that we won't have the discussion again any time soon because it reached ''some conclusion''. Your close doesn't really act as a barrier there if someone decides to revisit the issue in a few weeks. Other than that, just the fact that we could have already wrapped the thing up conclusively several hours ago, and you could be off deleting these articles I'm sending to CAT:G11, instead of arguing over policy and expediency. ]] 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC) | ::::::::::Well, I was just mostly switching gears to friendly banter. No hard feelings and all that. If anything, the one advantage to three of the four of those, is that we won't have the discussion again any time soon because it reached ''some conclusion''. Your close doesn't really act as a barrier there if someone decides to revisit the issue in a few weeks. Other than that, just the fact that we could have already wrapped the thing up conclusively several hours ago, and you could be off deleting these articles I'm sending to CAT:G11, instead of arguing over policy and expediency. ]] 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::: You may be right, but actually it is settled right up to the point that he appeals his indefinite block. That's the only thing that will change the current status. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC) | ::::::::::: You may be right, but actually it is settled right up to the point that he appeals his indefinite block. That's the only thing that will change the current status. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| {{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
| '''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| The ] has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
| Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
| {{stop}} Please stop edit warring against consensus at ]. --] (]) | |||
Revision as of 01:38, 22 April 2018
←
Centralized discussion
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
False titleholders
Hello Guy, I remember you were involved in this case. I see that a new user has been making similar contributions...two were reverted (one by me) and he requested recreation of an article on the alleged new titleholder. I believe user is probably another reincaration of previous users who were involved in the same articles. Could you please check this out? I'm travelling and won't be able to be too involved in this. Many thanks, Maragm (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, banhammer wielded. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
3X close
You're in a little bit of untested waters there with that close. It doesn't look like the policy re: WP:3X has been followed exactly, since the sock blocks were based AFAICT on behavioral evidence, not CU evidence, and if the required notification was provided on AN by a CU I missed it. Additionally, although 3X is clearly a reason not to open one of these threads if the appropriate steps have been followed, it's not clear that it's a reason to close one when discussion is ongoing and experienced users have opposed. Might be better to consider letting this one play out for a while. GMG 15:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, but that wasn't the question. If an editor is blocked, they should appeal the block, not evade it. Blocks and bans are technically identical, if there are false positives per WP:DUCK they need to appeal them, not indicate intent to evade. If the IPs are not HBH then HBH needs to appeal the block or dispute the claims. We don't need a Vote For Banning, that's just toxic. A serial block evader is de-facto banned, if HBH is not block evading then HBH needs to clear his name. See my point? Guy (Help!) 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on HBH either way. My only issue is that you effectively unilaterally CBANNED a user via close at ANI, citing a policy which says a user can be unilaterally CBANNED through CU evidence and a notification at AN. You couldn't even close the thread at ANI with a consensus for a CBAN at this point, even if it was unanimous, since it hasn't been 24 hours yet. I mean, if you want to try to IAR your way to a CBAN, then you should at least be explicit about it, because that's basically what you're doing. I don't care one bit if they're banned or not, only that we shouldn't do it out of process. GMG 15:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Uh, on that note, it was rather—urgent, perhaps?! And not a snowflake in sight ;) —SerialNumber54129 15:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- No I didn't. I pointed out that we don't need a Vote For Banning, any serial block evader is de-facto banned because no admin is likely to unblock. In other words, the request is unnecessary and if the user wants to edit they have to appeal the block and probably convince people the IPs were not him. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- And so...what?..you decided that if they do appeal the block all they need to do is convince one admin, and actually don't need to appeal to the community at all, because even though there was a CBAN discussion that was supposed to run at least 24 hours before reaching a consensus according to policy (and had overall support), you decided...nah. Where the heck does that put the admin who replies to an unblock request? They either grant it, because you decided to unilaterally override policy, and put their neck on the line for your IAR, or they decide that he needs to appeal to the community even though he's not actually banned. There's...no combination of policy here that supports your close. GMG 18:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- So people can get on with something more productive than a vote for banning. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously an effective strategy, since 16 hours later, we have three ongoing discussions instead of zero. GMG 11:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- But at least the hateful rhetoric has stopped. So there's that. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Think about it this way, there are worse things than a few hours worth of hateful rhetoric at ANI. For example, some of these editors may have instead been working on professional wrestling articles, and so are in every way better off bickering at a noticeboard instead. :P GMG 13:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so go back and look at the discussion. You have good-faith users in good standing opposing the ban, and rhetoric such as "toxic" and "asshat". Now consider the possible scenarios:
- Majority vote to ban: Socks / IPs continue to be blocked and edits reverted. Account remains blocked. Higher bar to appeal if the user is actually innocent or productive, as at least some good faith users seem to think. Misplaced Pages:List of banned users no longer exists, so there is no other change I can see.
- Do nothing (i.e. my close, status quo ante). Socks / IPs continue to be blocked and edits reverted. Account remains blocked. User is de facto banned due to sockpuppetry.
- No consensus. Again,status quo ante.
- No to ban. Would result in an end to the IP blocking and might result in unblock if he appeals. But he hasn't, and the majority was for a ban.
- So, what do we gain from an explicit ban rather than a de facto ban, in your view? Why is this important to you, please? Guy (Help!) 13:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I was just mostly switching gears to friendly banter. No hard feelings and all that. If anything, the one advantage to three of the four of those, is that we won't have the discussion again any time soon because it reached some conclusion. Your close doesn't really act as a barrier there if someone decides to revisit the issue in a few weeks. Other than that, just the fact that we could have already wrapped the thing up conclusively several hours ago, and you could be off deleting these articles I'm sending to CAT:G11, instead of arguing over policy and expediency. GMG 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- You may be right, but actually it is settled right up to the point that he appeals his indefinite block. That's the only thing that will change the current status. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I was just mostly switching gears to friendly banter. No hard feelings and all that. If anything, the one advantage to three of the four of those, is that we won't have the discussion again any time soon because it reached some conclusion. Your close doesn't really act as a barrier there if someone decides to revisit the issue in a few weeks. Other than that, just the fact that we could have already wrapped the thing up conclusively several hours ago, and you could be off deleting these articles I'm sending to CAT:G11, instead of arguing over policy and expediency. GMG 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Think about it this way, there are worse things than a few hours worth of hateful rhetoric at ANI. For example, some of these editors may have instead been working on professional wrestling articles, and so are in every way better off bickering at a noticeboard instead. :P GMG 13:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- But at least the hateful rhetoric has stopped. So there's that. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously an effective strategy, since 16 hours later, we have three ongoing discussions instead of zero. GMG 11:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- So people can get on with something more productive than a vote for banning. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- And so...what?..you decided that if they do appeal the block all they need to do is convince one admin, and actually don't need to appeal to the community at all, because even though there was a CBAN discussion that was supposed to run at least 24 hours before reaching a consensus according to policy (and had overall support), you decided...nah. Where the heck does that put the admin who replies to an unblock request? They either grant it, because you decided to unilaterally override policy, and put their neck on the line for your IAR, or they decide that he needs to appeal to the community even though he's not actually banned. There's...no combination of policy here that supports your close. GMG 18:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on HBH either way. My only issue is that you effectively unilaterally CBANNED a user via close at ANI, citing a policy which says a user can be unilaterally CBANNED through CU evidence and a notification at AN. You couldn't even close the thread at ANI with a consensus for a CBAN at this point, even if it was unanimous, since it hasn't been 24 hours yet. I mean, if you want to try to IAR your way to a CBAN, then you should at least be explicit about it, because that's basically what you're doing. I don't care one bit if they're banned or not, only that we shouldn't do it out of process. GMG 15:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Please stop edit warring against consensus at Judicial Watch. --Dr. Fleischman (talk)