Misplaced Pages

User talk:Alison

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cdtew (talk | contribs) at 01:53, 2 July 2013 (→Tough check-user case: r Someone). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:53, 2 July 2013 by Cdtew (talk | contribs) (→Tough check-user case: r Someone)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archives
2004 Entire year  
2005 Jan • Jun Jul • Dec
2006 Jan • Jun Jul • Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan • Jun Jul • Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Entire year  
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep • Dec  
2015 Entire year  
2016 Entire year  
2017 Entire year  
2018 Entire year  
2019 Entire year  
2020 Entire year  
2021 Entire year  
2022 Entire year  
2023 Entire year  
2024 Entire year  

Steve Jobs

Hi. Protection of this page will not solve the problem. What you have is basically a SPA with a significant history of disruption (considering they only have a couple hundred edits), who is being allowed to continue their pattern of behaviour. I'm not going to get bogged down in interminable wrangling with a disruptive SPA when admins should be doing their jobs and preventing this disruption. No wonder so many people get frustrated and leave the project. I don't "police" pages, so I have already made my last edit on that section. Regards -- Taroaldo ✉ 23:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • To be fair, "admin should be doing their jobs" is not a fair comment since admin are volunteers, it isn't supposed to be a "job". The editor has been blocked once before, so their actions haven't been ignored. Full protection simply allows for a clear consensus to form, so if an editor wars against it, it empowers admin to take necessary action quickly. Admin have to walk a fine line when it comes to content disputes, as content is dictated by editors, not admin. Full protection is a better first option in simple edit warring situations because it doesn't favor one side or another and doesn't have the admin forcing their preferred version on the editors. Had I stumbled across that article, I would have done the same thing: Protect when you can, block when it is the only option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • My point was disruptive editing is tolerated far too much. I have seen vigorous discussions go on for days about reversing bans on editors who have been nothing but disruptive throughout their history on the project. Yes, admins are volunteers, but so are plain old editors. Why do regular editors have to put up with so much shit from perpetually disruptive users, go through nasty stressful discussions just to draw attention to the matter, then, if we're lucky, they get blocked for 48 hours or maybe a week after which they're back at it again. I have a question over at WP:AN right now which nobody seems to want to deal with: the example is a user who has been reported to ANI twice in two weeks (not by me), yet nothing has been done because the user refuses to respond. This is just another example of frustration. I don't do anything special around here — usually just try to clean up a bit here and there. I'm a volunteer too, but if "regular editors" aren't going to get support from those who have the tools then maybe I should stop wasting my time here, because that's what it amounts to. FWIW, I added my comments at the Steve Jobs talk page. Regards -- Taroaldo ✉ 00:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    • You filed a hypothetical problem at WP:AN. It looks like two editors have offered assistance. I'm very aware of the frustration of disruptive editors and I'm sympathetic. But admin don't have infinite power to just block on command, and I think Alison choosing to protect was a good first step. Assuming a few more opine in your favor, then the editor goes back and reverts against it, I would warn them, then if needed, block them if they won't comply with consensus. Trust me, you wouldn't want a wiki where admin can ride in like cowboys and block on a whim. We have enough problems with eager blocking as it is. Alison has a COI with Apple and she has stated this on the article talk page, so there are ethical limits to what she can do there, understandably. If you get a clear consensus and there are future problems, feel free to ping me on my talk page, as I have no COI with Apple articles. I can't promise to do what you prefer, but I can promise to use my best judgement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Tough check-user case

Could you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Uayoa? It might involve someone you check briefly years ago. User:Wnwak was checked more recently and blocked by AGK, but he is apparently very busy with all the Arbcom stuff.... Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry to butt in here again, but I was just working at SPI and noticed this. Most of the time, you need to provide diffs for a CU to run a check. That is a huge amount of information you put up there, which is often problematic. One of the users hasn't edited since Oct 2012. A bunch of those haven't edited since 2010 or 2011. Most clerks won't bother with researching those. For example, I won't block someone that hasn't edited in a year, no less 3 years. It isn't "preventing disruption". CU can't connect something that is more than about 3 months old anyway. When you add all that info, it tends to get overlooked because it requires a ton of work to filter out the majority of information which isnt' actionable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Dennis is right in that there's a lot of tl;dr right there. However, I've taken a look through some of the current diffs and there may be enough evidence to take it on. Working on it ... - Alison 01:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Is User:Cdtew related? He came to defend Uayoa at MILHIST. These edits look pretty weird, a sock of Uayoa editing Cdtew's comments... Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to say that it's not likely, per behavior. They just have a similar name, is all. I don't think there's enough evidence to run a check - Alison 01:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Glad someone is thinking of me! Unfortunately, Someone, just because I a) bugged you about getting a registered username and b) objected to your mass-prodding of articles which may have had potential to be rescued doesn't make me a puppet master or sock. I use my real name on here, and even have my personal picture. I resent the implications, as I've had a spotless record on here with nary a block or warning template. As for the diffs you showed, it looks like someone inserted a comment before my signature by mistake. You guys can check me for socks all day - ill give you my exact whereabouts on any given day to compare against. Cdtew (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)