Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 18 August 2013 (→Let's talk about it: I miss already enough banned users, it's such an incredible waste of talent and service.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Salvio giuliano is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error (even a really stupid one) on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. If you are here to inquire as to why I deleted an article you created, please read this page and, if it does not satisfy your curiosity, please drop me a line, clicking here. Admin policy. Fellow administrators, if you disagree with one of my admin actions, please feel free to revert it. I just kindly ask you to leave an informative edit summary as to why you think I made a mistake; alternatively, if you prefer, you can leave a note on my talk page. Finally, seeing as I am awfully forgetful lately, if you have asked me something either here on in private and I have not replied within a reasonable time, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Epiphany

I suggest that what you all want is something like the following:

Misplaced Pages's child protection policy does not prohibit private contact(s) between individual adults and an unsupervised child (or unsupervised children).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely topic banned from complaining that Demiurge1000 has violated bans on private contacts (unless such contacts are banned by a future version of WP:Child protection).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely topic banned from making any statements that could be taken by a reasonable person as an allegation of pedophilia.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds

My internet access has been very limited lately due to the fact that I'm visiting another country - yours, to be more precise. Thus far I've been to Rome, Monte Cassino (WWII Commonwealth graveyard), the Naples metropolitan area (the city itself + Positano, Salerno, and Pompeii), Assisi, Venice, Verona, Lake Como (including a brief trip to Lugano in Switzerland), and Milan. I'll also be in Pisa and Florence within the next few days, before heading back into Rome for a couple more nights. Overall a lovely country (not unlike my own in many ways), but damn if it isn't hot in the summer! ;-)

Anyways, I guess it goes without saying that I don't have very many opportunities to comment on the Kiefer/Ironholds case at the moment, which I was heavily involved in from start to finish. However, I just noticed that one of the proposed remedies is to ban Ironholds from editing Misplaced Pages. Since I don't know where else to put this, I figured your talk page would make sense, seeing as you're the most active arbitrator on this particular case.

To say that I find such a measure "excessive" would be an understatement. A desysop is one thing — I disagree with it myself, but I can understand the reasoning behind removing the tools, and it's not like the community can't give them back to him at some point if they see fit. But a site ban? What good will that do for Misplaced Pages? Ironholds is a highly valued member of our community, and has been for as long as I can remember. By banning him outright, we are in effect telling him that he is no longer of any benefit to us as an editor, and his presence is actually harmful to the project. Can you imagine how humiliating that would be for him as an employee of Wikimedia? Not to mention completely and utterly unexpected; The worst Ironholds would have anticipated was a desysop, not an ouster.

A ban is not something to be taken lightly. Even if it's only expected to be a temporary injunction, the lasting effect of an indefinite ban from Misplaced Pages extends far beyond its actual duration. A ban leaves a stigma that smears their prior history while serving as the permanent benchmark by which all subsequent contributions are judged. It will always be associated with their activities here. I can name several editors who've returned from a ban, and to this day they struggle in burying that unfortunate period deep within their past once and for all.

Kiefer is a totally different story. He has generated so much drama and ill will over the years that I doubt his forthcoming site ban will come as a surprise to anyone; indeed, it may even be necessary at this point. But for Ironholds, I'd imagine that the off-wiki evidence must be absolutely vile, vicious, and mean-spirited in every sense of the term for such a remedy to be passing. It certainly can't be based on a handful of incidents dating back two whole years and a couple of "off-color" jokes on a public channel. If that is indeed the case, then ArbCom will have set a horrifying precedent where even the best of editors can be banned over minor infractions. Forget merely being offensive, I want a guarantee that Ironholds has actually caused very serious harm to at least one other editor through his actions on IRC. Otherwise, you can rest assured that I will denounce this resolution with more indignation than anything I have ever expressed on this site before. Kurtis 20:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You have chosen some of the best places to visit (Tuscany and Campania are wonderful regions and don't get me started on the local food...); if you have time or the opportunity, my suggestion would be to also visit Sicily. Or not, a good reason to return... And, yes, during summer Italy is way too hot (I'm currently on holiday in a place where, at night, we need a blanket; I fear the moment I have to go back...). And I've never been to Canada, though I've been willing to visit for a bit now; still haven't had the occasion, though.

Regarding the current arbcom case, well the reason I proposed to ban Ironholds is his history of incivility, although, to be entirely honest, what really sold me were the two logged-out edits (in one of them he writes of another editor "after being shown to be an astounding cunt"). Ok, they happened on a different project, but to log out to attack an opponent is one of the very few things which I consider always unacceptable. The idea is that his behaviour has been highly inappropriate so many times (and, the off-wiki evidence goes to show that there is indeed a long-standing pattern of incivility) that people may reasonably find his approach (and his passive-aggresiveness, when not outright aggressiveness) offputting and problematic, thinking they shouldn't have to put up with a person who merrily talks of punching a hole in a woman's windpipe and then watching her die or of hitting a doll in the likeness of Peter Damian. And I happen to agree that nobody should have to put up with a person who's so cavalier in his attitude towards others...

Then again, right now a more lenient approach is prevailing and he'll be only admonished. Salvio 12:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. It goes a long way towards clearing things up. I'm not saying what Ironholds did was good, I just personally don't consider it an offense worthy of a ban in itself. Sicily sounds amazing, and I might just go there during my next excursion into Italy - which of course will be during the autumn season, as I cannot take the Italian summer heat. Kurtis 14:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for butting in but having just returned home to a more exotic place (Thailand) from Hong Kong - where Oliver was very conspicuous by his absence in spite of clearly announcing his intention to be at at Wikimania, it appears I am too late to comment on the Arbcom case itself which only takes into consideration a fraction of both discussed partys' long established patterns of behaviour. As I understand the rules, in so far as the user name, IP, or real name (if used) can be established, blocks and bans apply to the person and thus to each and every account that can be used to edit the encyclopedia and contribute to discussions. It is indeed within the community's remit as users, admins, and Arbcom members to decide on whose collaboration it wishes to retain or dispense with, and if a remunerated activity is jeopardised by such a decision, it is no concern of the volunteer community however sympathetic it may be towards the eventual loss of an employment. It happens in in real life, so there is no reason for excessive indulgence simply because the movement is a non-profit. Indeed, the number of times Oliver has acted or spoken in an inappropriate manner in his official remunerated capacity have hardly been reported within the scope of the current case. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. (§1.1 Site ban); personal, professional, or legal threats (including outside the Misplaced Pages site) (§2.2 Blocking policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's largely academic now, but I'm really on the fence on this one. I mean, we have no authority, for instance, to remove a userright from a staff account (I think), so why should we be allowed to impose a much stronger sanction (i.e. a ban) on one of those accounts? This does indeed create a class of editors who are more protected than others, which is obviously problematic: everyone else can end up banned, whereas Foundation's employees cannot; then again, however, I don't want to interfere that directly in someone's employment. So this is a kind way (I hope) to say that I'd sure welcome input from the community on the issue. Salvio 13:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Deonis

User:Mylassa2000: Lovely cut-n-paste contributions, Google-translated edit summaries, and responding as a Ukrainian IP when directed to talk. Quack, quack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking, that's only a  Possible match (geolocation is correct, but the UA string is different); however, I have blocked based mainly on the behavioural evidence. Salvio 13:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, just letting you know that I put in a RM to restore one of User:Kauffner's 600 or so problematic db6 moves (you self-reverted some yourself in the past) at Talk:Lê Hiển Tông. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cheers. Salvio 13:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Closing discussions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Closing discussions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Block

Hi, you blocked User:Mylassa2000, and I was wondering what reason you had blocked them for. I am not saying you weren't right, I was just wondering, following a limited interaction with the user. Thanks, Matty.007 13:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I saw the above. Thanks, Matty.007 13:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

• News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches

• In the media: Chinese censorship

• Featured content: Misplaced Pages takes the cities

• Special report: Jimmy Wales: media favors entertainment over raising public awareness

• Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS

• WikiProject report: For the love of stamps

• Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case closes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk about it

Please show me evidence that Andy has "has displayed an impressive battleground mentality". I fail to see that in recent contributions. Perhaps you can look at the cases where he was recently involved and point out where you observe battleground mentality. - Thank you for your "Disproportionate" regarding me. Losing Andy's help and presence would sadden me disproportionately. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

ps: if you have only time for one instance, please look at this display (the regular suspect Andy not involved) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The most recent example of battleground mentality on Andy's part (that I'm aware of, at least) is this one. Now, Victoria may have been wrong, but the point is that Andy chose to escalate the situation, by making accusations and personal attacks on her. That's not the first time he has done something like that and I'm afraid it won't be the last: it has become a pattern for him. From my standpoint, he appears incapable of discussing an issue with others without resorting to a needlessly belligerent approach. He was already banned twice for the same conduct and those sanctions did nothing to improve his behaviour, for that reason I believe that an indefinite ban is the only real solution...

Regarding the comment you link to, I agree it's highly inappropriate, but, to be entirely honest, I believe that it was borne out of frustration (not with you, but rather with the entire situation) and that removing Andy from the field should lead to a generally more relaxed atmosphere (should that not be enough, someone can always file a request for amendment, after all); and I am read to support an admonishment for its author, if it's proposed, but nothing more than that, frankly. Salvio 14:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

To ban Andy is no solution at all, because - as I pointed out in June already - you will still have to deal with me until you ban me also ;) - About escalating: Victoria - whom I respect a lot - repeated that an editor left over "The Pilgrim", while said editor edited afterwards. More polite words are imaginable to describe that discrepancy, but I would not say "battleground mentality" (for me: seeking battle for battle's sake, no?) if someone tries to defend himself against accusations. I'm afraid I would also get excited. - Infoboxes are no problem in 9x % of wiki articles, just in the classical music section. Is that a problem of those who go for site consistency or those who want to keep there special corner? - I miss already enough banned users, it's such an incredible waste of talent and service. Look for "Ban" on top of my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)