Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 16 April 2010 (→Drork: Unclear why there would be hope for the future). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

User:Silverhorse

He's still doing the weird date formatting thing in contravention of your earlier block. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy: how limited?

Hello. Can I ask what duration you had in mind for Nableezy's "limited" topic ban? As an aside, I agree regarding Shuki and AE complaints/reports. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Something on the order of a few months; I'm open to suggestions. The last topic ban was 4 months, later reduced to 2.  Sandstein  22:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If possible I would like to suggest that should such a topic ban take place that it is limited to article content and that he remains free to take part in talkpage discussions. Unomi (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The last topic ban was also manifestly excessive in my view, even after the reduction. It should have been no more than a month, and the admin who imposed it no longer participates at AE after taking a number of controversial decisions.

Nableezy is also one of the few editors on IP conflict pages who draws support from both sides of the political divide, we should be doing everything we can to encourage such editors, not discouraging them, and I hope therefore given the relatively minor infringements here that any sanction thus applied will take account of these factors. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, Constance Demby here...

Hi Sandstein... Constance Demby here... and it's been some time since we had a discussion... We last talked in Dec 09, and then I got really busy with career concerns. I had sent new information for my page, and there were items that needed to be edited, changed, etc, and I finally now have time to devote to my Wiki page and make it the way it's supposed to be! which honestly, I did not understand nor was I aware of the Wiki rules when I first started posting to my page ... and is why all that trouble and bad reviews on the talk page occured. no one had told me how Misplaced Pages works... Now I know, and now I have a new producer who want to promote me, and I need to fix my page the way it should be according to Wiki standards and guidelines. But now I cant find the page where the new bio was entered, and where there were several comments from you

so to sum up... I need to get my wiki page edited and up to standard, and I would appreciate your counsel and direction as to where I find the page where I entered all my info in Dec of 2009... thanks so much for your help and guidance, much appreciated!

and I just found this: when I tried to go to <http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Constance_Demby&diff=prev&oldid=329772242>

Wikimedia Foundation Error العربيOur servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

thanks for you help Sandstein, much appreciated Constance66.215.99.9 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

hi again and this is the page that I was looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Constance_Demby&diff=next&oldid=329772242 it just came up. now,I need to understand the guidelines on the two sides of the page and how to re-edit and re-submit the material.

thanks .... Constance Demby66.215.99.9 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The link you mention above seems to work fine from here, I would suggest that the best way forward would be to suggest changes to the talk page and invite input from other editors, please review WP:COI and WP:BIOSELF. Kind Regards, Unomi (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Good news you have something to block me for again Factomancer (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unequal implementation of a supposedly bilateral interaction ban. Thank you. — Satori Son 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

== Truly pathetic ==

You can take any criticism without threatening me with a "community" ban. I've contributed numerous quality articles to Misplaced Pages - more than you have recently. Shows how little you care about the encyclopedia and how this is just an exercise in imposing your authority for your own gratification. I've removed my ANI report so you can't get the satisfaction of banning me. Factomancer (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on, explain yourself. You said that you thought I needed a community ban. Well, make your case. I'm listening. Factomancer (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction Ban... not working

I'm not waiting 8 hours, sorry. I don't know if that even applies to everyone or just to the editors under the ban, but I don't really care to be honest... this is out of hand. It's absolutely ridiculous what I-P is turning into on Misplaced Pages and it is largely a result of this interaction ban which is broken on a nearly daily basis. It is pitting the two "sides" against each other and it has gotten worse than I have ever seen it. The interaction ban is not working; therefore, I hope that you will do something else that can help this situation before it completely falls apart. Here are the newest violations of the interaction ban:

• I know you are already aware of the post that was made at AN/I. It had a direct mention of Mbz1 by Factomancer through diffs. It was not a complaint about an interaction ban violation on Mbz1's part, so there was no reason for Factomancer to be mentioning Mbz1. You responded at that AN/I and didn't do anything about it, so I guess you didn't consider it a violation for some reason. Maybe because she attempted to strike out and delete the request after the fact? Although personally that makes it worse in my eyes, but clearly I'm not the admin.
• Anyway, past AN/I, she put the same violation on her user page here . It is also a clear violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC. Soon after, she also removed this information, replacing the content with this stating that she is going on a long break. She has done this before when she has gotten herself into big trouble, only to change her mind after a couple of days and come back. As we can see, her temporary break in that case didn't change her behaviour, as here we are once again.
• I'm truly tired of dealing with this crap. Last year we actually had some sort of collaboration going on in I-P on Misplaced Pages, before we had to deal with issues like this (to this severity, at least). A combination of a few "new" users coming into the I-P struggle relatively recently have turned it into a real warzone between the two sides, and I don't like it. I don't think other people like it either. It is having an EXTREMELY detrimental effect on the encyclopedia in the I-P area, because not only is so much of our time wasted fighting and defending each other in constant AE and AN/I reports, or sitting out short bans for minor infractions, but even aside from that, it just isn't rewarding or feasible to try to contribute and collaborate anymore. There is no longer an expectation that posting something constructive on a talk page will lead to discussion from people who disagree. There is no point of making significant edits to articles because they are simply followed up by quick reverts, often with no edit summary.
• I was planning on coming up with some conclusion to this complaint to convince you to take action, but you know what, typically as of late I've even lost my motivation to do that. I just don't care; it's a waste of time and probably won't get the atmosphere between editors back to what it used to be anyway. The problem is that all you can do (or are willing to do anyway) is impose bans based strictly upon the word of the rules interpreted specifically based on the individual situation. If you took a minute to look at the big picture and understand the impact that certain users are having on the entire I-P editing community with their constant infractions and battles, maybe you would think of a different solution. Breein1007 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much battling going on. However, admins are limited in what they can do; basically they can block or ban disruptive users, but they can't make them cooperate. So, other than the current individualized rules enforcement, we have little option but to topic-ban a lot of people for a long time just to stop the battling. But I feel we don't currently have a clear overview of who such a ban would need to include. I've tried to start something at WP:WPAE, but participation by other admins so far is limited.  Sandstein  17:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you, hopefully it will lead to something in the future... meanwhile, I take your lack of comment about the interaction ban as indication that she didn't violate it by linking to diffs of Mbz1 and complaining about them? Breein1007 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably yes, but I would prefer that another admin take any required action.  Sandstein  17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty disappointing that admins can be intimidated into inaction by bad behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just that I'm pretty fed up with having to do most of these unpleasant admin actions with respect to mostly quite unpleasant people. The violation (if any) in this case seems pretty transient and no other banned editor has officially asked me to act (not that I'd encourage them to), so I do not feel compelled to act.  Sandstein  20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you have a thankless job and frankly you couldn't pay me to do the volunteer work you do. I think the only way the IP topic will calm down (as much as is can calm down) is through escalating topic bans to problematic editors. On both sides. I think you've been doing an excellent job with that so far. Still, the fact that an editor through bad behavior can get admins to think twice before interacting with them (and you're not the only one who was approached with this and refused) is something that shouldn't happen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That huff by Factomancer isn't really worth going to the inordinate lengths process sometimes requires to implement effective sanctions. If they keep that up, though, I see lengthy blocks or bans in their future, as has already been the case with their principal opponent.  Sandstein  21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea if editors who don't want to see Factomancer given lengthy blocks or bans in the future do something proactive now to try to minimise the chances of it happening? Perhaps the same would have been true of Mbz1?     ←   ZScarpia   10:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork

6 months is a bit over the top, the usual block for first time socking is 1 week. nableezy - 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But then, socking in order to evade both a block and (for the third time) an arbitration topic ban is not usual.  Sandstein  17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork can be an asset to the encyclopedia. He shouldnt be pushed out, he should be walked back in. A nominal block for socking and the opportunity to file an appeal of the sanction would be, in my opinion, the best way forward. Whatever you do as an admin should be to improve the encyclopedia. This doesnt do that. nableezy - 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Drork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If this record offers promise for good editing in the future, I would hate to see a bad record. When Drork first showed up at the 3RR noticeboard in February, he seemed precociously stubborn and aggressive. By continued bad behavior, Drork is choosing to join the dark side. I think some evidence of reform, expressed on his talk page, would be needed to consider shortening his six-month block. If you are tempted to think that Drork's attitude has improved, take a look at the 'Ban Misplaced Pages' message at the top of his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You got time for an RfC review/closure?

Hey Sand. I was wondering if you wanted to take a break from arbtitrations and I/P issues and take some time to review this? If you decline for want of time, I will understand. NickCT (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? I've replied there.  Sandstein  17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)