Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coren (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 29 July 2012 (→Andreasegde: A Bit Of A Coup.: Again, please familiarise yourself with policy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You've Got Mail!

I've sent an email regarding my case Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive. I appreciate your feedback, and guidance as to what can be done. Thank you. Ituhubert (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are requesting? You have been long since unblocked on good faith since you assure us that the co-workers who shared your address will not misbehave again. So long as they do not, and you continue editing from that one account, then there is no problem? — Coren  22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Coren. I was hoping to have the ruling overturned, removed, or given a disclaimer regarding the situation so that this stigma doesn't carry into future discussions. The major problem is that there are users who continuously cite the sockpuppetry conviction against me as a reason for me to stop adding information. Ituhubert (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Andreasegde: A Bit Of A Coup.

Hi. With reference to Andreasegde and the twelve month topic ban: I sincerely believe that to be extremely harsh. And why include related subjects that don’t involve the other party - may I ask how was that punishment arrived at and by whom? You know The Beatles is a very lively forum and leeway is needed. There are some editors there that will run crying to an admin when it suits them (above might be a good example) and generally piss off others, but we tolerate them. Tolerance has always been the key in fact when things got a bit heated, until now it seems. You've been too heavy handed I think, and perhaps inadvertently taken sides; that is how it looks to me anyway. Andreasegde has been a terrific editor on The Beatles, and the place will be very dull now without a character like him around. --Patthedog (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was an AN/I thread where it was determined that Andreasedge's contributions were too problematic to continue, but the ban does allow him to continue participating in the mediation; I'm certain that at its conclusion, the community will be more than happy to reconsider the ban if he behaved positively. — Coren  14:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your short reply. I do understand what happened, hence my reference to a coup. But you failed to answer my question: who meted out this punishment? --Patthedog (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I suppose I did. I'm not certain what you mean by that, though; I evaluated the result of the discussion and applied it. Some of the details (duration, exception for mediation) are a result of my own common sense and experience, however, if that's what you meant. — Coren  18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You’ve walked into a bear trap here. The Beatles talk page is always very hot, political as hell, and you need to be able to read between the lines. Andreasedge is a popular editor who often speaks for quite number of us on certain controversial issues, and by banning him you have effectively split the community. Up until you did that we were all trying to work together. Did you familiarise yourself with the political background to all of this first? If not, you have been duped. This will have to be taken further. Patthedog (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to seek a review of my admin action, of course, but I think you are proceeding under a dangerous misrepresentation.

Misplaced Pages doesn't work with factions and politics; there are no representatives, nor are there allowances made for battleground mentality because one "side" is better "represented" than another. Consensus must be reached through discussion and collaboration, and misbehaviour cannot be forgiven simply because an editor is popular. The fact is, Andreasedge behaved atrociously in that topic area; and his continued participation was a cause for strife and disruption. He hindered the process of reaching consensus rather than help it. — Coren  22:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I support the action, of course, since I provided a small portion of the background evidence that demonstrated, as I and numerous others saw it, that Andreasegde had both recently and well into the past been a problem editor in his relations to others. Now comes "this will have to be taken further"... but Coren, rest assured that I (and I am sure I am not alone) will be happy to back your accurate decision in any venue or forum it may wind up in. Please keep me informed as an involved party and thank you for making a call that, by clear consensus of the editors involved, needed to be made and was arguably long overdue. Jusdafax 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much considered an expert by many editors, for creating situations and traps for the unweary in order to better educate them. I concur 100% with Patthedog's remarks here, and I'd urge you to read further into the diffs involved. Pay particular attention to the style and pattern of GabeMc's contributions, some of it is very easy to miss at first glance, some caution is required with this editor. Penyulap ☏ 02:37, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Coren, we’re just trying to right a wrong; it won’t be easy and we’ll need all the support we can get. Of course it’s political, what talk page isn’t? The Beatles has some of the most passionate and vociferous editors here, and if you can’t detect the undercurrents, then what are you doing making huge judgment calls like slapping a year’s ban on an editor? I’ll come to that later. GabeMc is at the heart of all this, wanting more control of the article, and who sees Andreasedge as a threat. So having him out of the way will be right up his street. There are others like Jusdafax who have old scores to settle; they’re smaller fry but important, as collectively they form a faction. What did you say about not working with politics and factions? There must have been some serious high-fiving after your intervention. Ok, a year’s ban? Where did that come from; is there tariff that you use, or did you just make it up? Justify it for me. A whole year’s ban on The Beatles and any related article including Liverpool, please explain the reasoning behind that savage embargo. Don’t hide behind that: “I'm certain that at its conclusion, the community will be more than happy to reconsider the ban if he behaved positively” bit of your earlier remarks, because at this moment I can’t see that being at all guaranteed, so it ought to be left out of your reckoning. Thank you. --Patthedog (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(←) The duration and conditions are pretty much as "standard" as they get; and the hat I've pulled them out of is the one I wore for three years. I should note that the original discussion did not mention a definite ban at all, or consider an exception for the mediation; if anything, I've been liberal in my interpretation of the discussion. Like I said, you are welcome to seek further review of my administrative action, but I have seen no compelling reason to reconsider it at this point. — Coren  17:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I should add that arguments that other editors might be misbehaving or that the dispute has split into factions is reason against reconsidering as it simply illustrates that there currently is a mentality of camps, "winners" and "losers". If you think someone else is disruptive, dispute resolution is that way. One does not solve a dispute by relaxing restrictions against a misbehaving editor so that they can return to the fray "for the right side". — Coren  17:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pat here.

GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please take a good, honest look at the antics of this editor the past few weeks; he is so obsessed with changing the 'T' in "The Beatles" to lower case (it's that absurd) that he has made it clear that he will stop at nothing to get his way:

• Adding me to "the list" - "Mafia-esque"? What do we mean here?

• Starting a thread on Jimbo's talk page to report an admin for a 3RR that didn't go his way and then continuing to bring questionable difs to the discussion after several editors had sussed him out and told him to stop. (I agree, BTW, that the comment 'grow the fuck up' was out of line, but not the sentiment behind it).

• Any one who disagrees with Gabe is "disrupting" something , is "harassing" him or is "childish": here, and here - please read my post that he felt was "harassment".

• He has attempted to influence the mediation that he started (notice the title of the thread).

• Encouraged one of his cronies to file an SPI against me, since, as you'll see from the discussion, I favour the capital 'T', and after all, I got "caught" socking before (which I have never acknowledged). This way he could silence both myself and the IP, since we have both objected to GabeMc's behaviour.

I also wish to hell someone would reopen this SPI so that we could all know for sure who the sock is not.

As far as andreasegde, I think he should be encouraged to just present the facts and keep the sarcasm out of it; in any event, I feel that 12 months is way too harsh for someone whose contributions have been positive overall. Radiopathy •talk• 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the dispute over 't' or 'T' is a content dispute, and that there is a mediation in progress to examine exactly that. Whether someone is arguing for one or the other is not within the scope of administration, and should be dealt with during the mediation. — Coren  19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And what of Gabe's chronic disruptions? Radiopathy •talk• 19:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The next step would normally be a request for comments. — Coren  20:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• With the exception of Pat, I see the same few cast of characters as were in the minority at ANI coming to hound you on your talk page, Coren. I say again, you made the right call. This is about Andreasegde and his problematic interactions with others. I should note that aside from my brief but extremely unpleasant encounter with him at the Pete Best talk page last year, that I have no stake in any of this cast of characters. I noticed the ANI thread by coincidence, and spoke up to offer testimony because it was the right thing to do, not because of my alleged "old scores to settle" of the undeniably hostile way I was dealt with by Andreasegde. Indeed, this matter is one big time sink, but I am determined to see this through. Andreasegde has never offered anyone apologies or shown any contrition whatsoever and judging from this diff sees himself as the victim of "vicious barbarians", and I think this serves to illustrate the unrepentant and intractable nature of this now correctly-sanctioned editor. Thank you yet again Coren, for not passing the buck. Jusdafax 20:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with the topic ban, and the severity, I do agree with the Coren in regards to the correct approach to other problems, and have been thinking as much myself. Penyulap ☏ 21:42, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I’m going to back off and just see what happens next. At least you now know a little more about all this I suppose; whether or not that will make a jot of difference to anything, who knows. I don’t think we were hounding you, were we? Sorry if that’s how it came across. Cheers,Patthedog (talk)

I have to agree with many of the comments here regardng lack of research before judgement. I also feel some of the issued penalties were warranted but full research was not done and a complete solution was not carried out. Sure some of Andreasegde snide remarks were borderline and on (over) the edge but many were only a response to GabeMc, settling the flavour and uout-of-control for the last years, as an example. I put a complaint about his disruptive behaviour on ANI a month back and the disruptive behaviour there got it laughed into oblivion. Yeah, it was real funny to disrupt a legitimate complaint until no admin would even touch it, but when Andreasgde was complained about for the same behaviour, he/she gets sanctions placed to correct it. Even the mediation request is filled with disruptions to the main complaint with finger pointing back and forth. A small starting research spot in last week is the four complaints against other independant editors that disagree with GabeMc, all being disruptive to his quest to change the de facto status of wording used in over a hundred otehr Beatles articles involved, already established. Many people have attempted to explain the grammar logic but GabeMc continues his plight with battleground behaviour. This is analogous to the children fighting and the parent takes their heads and knocks them together because they can't be bothered to understand how the feud started giving the only message as "Don't bother me". Here comes the troll and sock accusations again. That may explain all my comments and the fact that I can read editing style from others. Nothing to do with editing or code writing since 1975. ;-P 99.251.125.65 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with Patthedog and Radiopathy here, and am troubled by the year topic ban of Andreasegde. I am not a part of any "cast of characters", nor did I come here to hound you, Coren. Had I known about the AN/I, I would have spoken up there, but since it is closed, I think this is the best place for my comments for now. I've edited Beatles-related articles for almost 6 years and think that a long-range topic ban for Andreasegde is not warranted and in fact damaging to the encyclopedia. Perhaps a short cooling-off period would be helpful for both editors, but GabeMc's negative role over several years on this topic is notable and has to be considered when looking at bans. Yes, Andreasegde sometimes goes over the top, but his significant contributions to many, many Beatles articles are largely responsible for the depth of many of the articles, and his spirit and knowledge have vastly improved the set and the editing experience. GabeMc has been on a mission to make the articles over in the way he prefers - this goes back years - and in my experience is less interested in compromise and consensus and more interested in getting his way. That is not the way to work collaboratively, and Gabe's relentless insistence on his point of view is one reason why I have taken breaks from editing those articles. Not so Andreasegde's work methods and humor. This is not the forum to go on about this, I know, but I couldn't let this go by without comment and hope this is helpful in any reconsideration, especially of the length of what I think is an ill-considered topic ban. Tvoz/talk 19:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wondered what the purpose of this action was when I saw it, at the time my curiosity didn't get the better of me because it was just me, but I would like to ask the thinking on that one if I may. Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

  Given your unhealthy obsession with following the goings and doings of GabeMc, I'm certain you are well aware that he has been on the receiving end of quite a bit of anonymous bile lately. — Coren  03:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  As he should be, and he doesn't deserve preferential treatment from you. Radiopathy •talk• 03:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  I would recommend that you read WP:HOUND; it may prove both instructive and useful to you. In particular, it might make you realize how unwise it is to applaud or encourage harassment of other editors. — Coren  03:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)You're clearly biased; you're buying into Gabe's tale of woe about being "harassed" and "hounded", and you're telling one of the editors that he used his battleground behaviour on about WP:HOUND. My advice to you is to just end your involvement in this unless you can be involved in a fair, rational manner. Radiopathy •talk• 03:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  I need not "buy into" anything to observe GabeMC having had to request multiple times for an anonymous editor to stop editing on his talk page without being heeded.

  Well that is a reason, it just didn't seem clear at the time, so thank you for clarifying. Penyulap ☏ 03:47, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan

Hi Coren, I'd like to unblock YRC, but want to check to make sure you don't mind. There's been something of a pile-on around him recently -- some of it his fault, some of it not -- and we're now in a situation where one block is leading to the next. It would be good to break that dynamic because he's a very dedicated editor who makes valuable contributions. At times he almost single-handedly keeps the BLP noticeboard running, for example.

He did have a point about Stephen M. Cohen. We would normally not start articles with "X is a British murderer" or "Y is a French blackmailer." If that's what notability rests on, we would write something like "X is a British businessman who was convicted in 2012 of the murder of Y."

YRC shouldn't have reverted so often, so I'm not questioning your block, but I'm thinking that time served would be long enough. SlimVirgin 17:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind, but it's against the advice of Dennis (who has been mentoring YRC for a while); and while YRC seems to feel he has it in for him at the moment, the relationship has been productive for a good while and I'd rather chalk this out to current frustration than anything else.

That said, you've proven your judgement time and time again in the past. If you think you can make an unblock work, go for it. — Coren  18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is just that, my opinion. I will not interfere with the judgement of SlimVirgin in any way. If you feel that you can help him, then please do so using whatever methods you deem appropriate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 19:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks to both of you. I'll unblock him now, and I'll write him a note later about the best way forward. Thanks again, SlimVirgin 19:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to go on record as stating that YRC is, in my view, unacceptable as an editor here. Full disclosure: I had a run-in with him some years ago in his previous incarnation (at least 11 blocks under that name), and have observed his attempt to reform under a new identity (an astonishing 8 additional blocks in the past 8 months) with weary horror. I think his contributions at BLP are of little moment compared to how many good editors have been offended and turned off from participation by his abrasive style. This cycle just seems to go on and on over the years, and I predict sooner or later we will have this same conversation somewhere again, and then again. I must say I wonder at it. Jusdafax 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It is unusual how many chances for reform he is given. Meanwhile, User:Hopiakuta, a long-term disabled user, was just indefinitely blocked because editors don't like the inconvenience of communicating with a blind user. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the entire context, but even a cursory inspection of both the thread and the history make it seem as though "because editors don't like the inconvenience of communicating with a blind user" is a rather lopsided mischaracterisation. — Coren  02:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Having been involved in discussion about Hopiakuta in the past, exactly how am I misconstruing it? It's inconvenient for editors to deal with people who have disabilities so they choose indefinite blocks as the simplest solution to a situation they neither have the time nor the energy to try to understand. His entire block log proves that is true. Further, extensive discussions on the noticeboards have born this out. To quote Lawrence Cohen, "The problem is made worse because some people, without knowing about Hopiakuta's limitations, may take it as someone being weird for the sake of weird, or worse, forgetting AGF and thinking someone is messing around." Hopiakuta has been falsely accused again and again over the years, from vandalism to trolling to disruption. Yet, two mentors, L'Aquatique and Xeno, have both worked with the user successfully and without issues. To quote Crazytales, "DonFphrnqTaub Persina (apparently Hopiakuta's real name) is a founding member of a disability living centre in California. He probably has a cognitive disability of some sort, which would explain his incoherent talk page comments and copying of error messages. I don't think we should prevent such users from editing Misplaced Pages, it's obvious Hopiakuta is acting in good faith." Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a laudable sentiment, but there are limits; if an editor – even in good faith – consistently causes more damage and time sink than what they contribute, then their continued participation is not a net positive. There is a rather on-point, if ill-named, essay that gives a summary of the issue. Ultimately, it's profoundly unfair demand that volunteers expend time and effort working around an editor that causes damage through their limitations if that editor is unable or unwilling to limit themselves to tasks that are within their capabilities. — Coren  11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On that subject: Did anything further happen on the Kremen v. Cohen matter? Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but I expect it should soon given that the Wikimanian dust is settling down. I'll keep you up to date at the end of next week. — Coren  19:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A truthful, trolling-free, perosnal-attack-free message on proxies

Yes, this is EEL, and this is a message describing why your idea might be somewhat good - for you, not for me. I mainly use the proxylist at this site along with around five others, which list many other proxies, and I usually choose an elite at random. However, roughly 90% of proxies I try to use are already blocked, hence, it's a very boring day when all you do is cycle through proxies that're all blocked. Anyway, the point is, I'd create a script, if you intend to go with your plan, to generate a list of proxies daily from the seven lists I primarily use and a separate script to determine elite ones, and a third to actually use them. So, basically, you should consolidate data from as many proxy sites as you can, instead of the small number used by ProcseeBot, to block more proxies than it does. P.S. The reason I've never stopped trolling is because no one ever asked nicely. Just ask, and I will, seriously. 219.223.211.193 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should be flattered that you are paying such close attention to my actions; but I also wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea: your current ability to troll this way is simply a symptom of an underlying systemic problem which I would rather solve than play whack-a-mole with you (or anyone else).

That said, yes – please stop. While I'm about to make this particular way of trolling considerably more boring, I'd much rather you found some other way to amuse yourself that didn't consume the time of volunteers that are trying to do something else. Hell, why not try your hand at helping the project, instead of hindering them? — Coren  17:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Please stop" is the most polite request I've ever received to stop. Anyway, some proxy sites to help, I guess?

Xroxy hidemyass.com/proxy-list/ hma (it isn't letting me link this one) Proxybase.de Ros and Ros2 proxynova spys.ru UK proxies

(P.S. This is also an open proxy, port 80)

219.223.211.193 (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello EEL, I do not know why you are doing what you are doing, so I will not judge your reasons, except to say that I know you must have a good reason for what you are doing. I'd ask that you hold off educating the idiots in how to do this sort of thing, I mean, it's obvious that you are smart enough, to try to help, and to run rings around everyone. I would like to help you to find a better way if it is a righteous cause that you pursue, in exchange for my help, would you please stop posting walk-throughs just for long enough to chat to me, please ? Penyulap ☏ 03:33, 26 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Can you checkuser this? Someone has impersonated me and other users in an apparent attempt to get us blocked and I find it highly unnerving.—cyberpower _{Temporarily Online} 18:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)