Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273: Difference between revisions

:Getting uninvolved opinions (as well as involved ones) is one of the points of a RFC, and helping identify who might count as "involved" in a discussion is common, though less commonly with this rigor. It's odd, but why is it wrong? [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

::It appears to be skewed in a number of ways, statistics can be formed to say whatever the person creating the way data is presented wants it to. It only counts edits to talk pages. The terms searched for are chosen by one person. Those terms were pages outside of the one the RFC is addressing. The comparison is to total talk page posts, so someone who posts a lot can have a large involvement but be counted as uninvolved. This is also not geared towards consensus building as the RFC page recommends, but to exclusion. That it is being done by someone very involved in the RFC is another problem. Lastly, it may sway late comers to the RFC to jump to whatever side they think is "winning" by these statistics. I think the whole uninvolved section should be hatted as inappropriate for an RFC, and it has been, but the person who created the skewed information reverted it. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 02:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 

::::As another involved editor: correct me if I'm wrong, but the conclusion you seem to be inviting people to draw is that Kingofaces manipulated the statistics deliberately (and unethically) to give their "desired" result. Is that the intention? [[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <i style="font-size:11px">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</i> 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 

:::Once again {{u|Tsavage}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_food&diff=669711214&oldid=669698915 said] it well:

::::^also Agree, and especially with the quote from [[User:Tsavage|Tsavage]] [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

::*Above [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] says:

::One actually could have gone and tagged some accounts as SPA's in that RfC, but I would have seen that as even more invasive and interjecting too much on editor behavior in the main part of the RfC. If inserting an SPA template is fine, there shouldn't be any issue with something even less pointed like this after the RfC has mostly wrapped up. The whole point of an RfC is to get opinions from uninvolved editors. In long RfC's, it's difficult to tease out how involved someone has been in the topic, so that's all that table was there to address. The table shows general involvement of editors ''regardless'' of which side they are on, so it's very difficult to say it was intended convince the closer one way or another. It's only intent was to show involvement in the topic and nothing beyond that. One can argue that is within the scope of [[WP:RFC]] when done right, which is bit different than normal talk page discussion. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

:::The table should be ignored by the closer, as it doesn't identify the selection of GM-related articles, and the percentage seems unrelated to "involvement". I ''can'' think of a table which would be somewhat helpful to the closer, so I don't think {{u|Kingofaces43}} should be censured for his actions, but the table could be hatted. (I know the result of the RfC which seems best, so I will not be that closer. I think something like [[WP:SPOV]] ''should'' be a guideline, but some believe [[WP:NPOV]] contradicts it.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 19:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

:::: We are getting close to a close since this has been listed on [[WP:ANRFC]]. I opened this section and I have not sought sanctions other than a warning not to remove the hat. Would an admin please hat this section of the RFC? [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

::::Actually, I did identify what keywords were used both in the initial posting and subsequent replies here and at the RfC. Aside from articles relating to crop patents (topic that comes up a lot relating to GMOs), pretty much everything else should have been intuitive for what I listed and repeatable. As for the RfC itself, I've said from the start that I'm fine with someone just simply closing the discussion rather than hatting, though that doesn't appear absolutely needed since there isn't really anything happening now with editor comments at that section (as it was mainly intended) as we wait for a close. I imagine the eventual closer is more than capable of deciding if they want to use the information or not on their own, so I see no reason for us to hat it. Ultimately, they'll decide whether to use it or not. Since there are a variety of opinions here, it seems like the best course of action is to just let it be as is until the close. If the closer thinks it's helpful information, then great. If they don't intend to use it even in part, that's plenty fine too as it's only meant to provide additional information rather than sway the closing decision any particular direction. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 02:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 

Just so everyone knows, it might be a good idea to keep some extra attention on [[Jules Bianchi]] for the next few days; he died in the last few hours from injuries suffered in his crash at the [[2014 Japanese Grand Prix]], and I wouldn't be surprised to see some pop-up vandalism as a result. [[User:Rdfox 76|rdfox 76]] ([[User talk:Rdfox 76|talk]]) 03:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 

{{Clear}}

*'''Oppose lifting ban''' and '''clarify''' that it also applies to AfD. I thought I would, at the very least, be arguing to exclude AfDs from the ban, but then I saw Drgao's comments at that AfD. No way. [[User:Reyk|<span style="color:maroon;">'''Reyk'''</span>]] [[User talk:Reyk|'''<sub style="color:blue;">YO!</sub>''']] 14:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

*'''Oppose lifting topic ban from medicine''' There is no clear indication that User:Drgao realizes what the issue is or that they will use high quality sources in a neutral way going forwards. So yes this ban is preventative. The ban also applies to AfD IMO. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

{{abot}}

 

: No, I am afraid an edit filter would not help here.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 

:{{ping|JaGa}}I'm active on WMF Labs Tools and am up for doing a bit of development, if you want a hand or someone to take it over. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 14:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

::Now I'm working my way from May forwards, I have no idea what the ''hell'' he was trying to accomplish but it's led to complete and total FUBAR. Thankfully I can move things over redirects, or this would be impossible. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<span style="font-family:MS Mincho; color:black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello all,

 

:I would oppose a block because frankly, I think the fact that [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] is a guideline is kind of odd (but that's a discussion for another night). It ''is'' a little odd, though, that JIK1975 made that statement on his user page rather than on his talk page. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small>^{<span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]]</span>}</small> 03:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

::[[User:JIK1975]] has {{querylink|User:JIK1975|qs=&curid=46263549&diff=674315494&oldid=672164952|now removed}} that statement. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 06:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: I made an argument, but because I used completely trivial terminology that can be misconstrued as an appeal to ethnic bias, you ignored it. The ethnicity, nationality, location and whatever other property of those people advocating the disruption of the Pavle Đurišić article is immaterial. The fact that it happened and may continue to happen in the future unless this is cleared up - is what is important in this discussion. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: JFTR I explained further at [[User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors]] now. Let's link the old discussion here too: [[Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy]]. That is about the "decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD)" from above. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:: If I was actually into draconic purges, perhaps I would have purged some of your meaningless flamewars over the years, but as we can see you're still here to flame me. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

:::Again, just zip it with the personal stuff. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 

::::: Director, we have been on the same and different sides of arguments in the past, but in the recent past you have not been the one who has been dealing with Antid when he returns to type. Joy (and I) do, along with {{u|Tomobe03}} and {{u|23 editor}}. And others like IJA. It's nice that you (and others) think Antid should be given even more rope than he's already had from two increasingly-wide topic bans, but you won't be there dealing with it. I have no interest in nationalism on any side in the Balkans, and I am on the same page (if not the same paragraph) as Joy on this one. Far from grovelling, Antid shows no signs of contrition whatsoever, and has outlined no plan to avoid the same behaviour as got him banned in the past (twice). On that basis alone, he should be subjected to a "one strike and you're out" probation period at best, and retention of the t-ban as it is at worst. Please keep your conflicts with Joy out of this. Thanks, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 06:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::: I really am. Peacemaker, this guy has been hammered twice: If he's a marginally ''sentient being'', he'll know to shut up and behave. If not, I say lower the boom on him. You absolutely have a point, I haven't been there recently, and I won't be dealing with him if he gets back (you know I appreciate the damage control you do) - but I'm NOT suggesting you be forced to deal with more of his disruption. If he starts again, you ought to be able to put a stop to it by the quick procedure. Hence, like I said: he seems serious, he seems like he cares about not getting further sanctions. Put him on probation, two years, something like that. And take this into consideration: if he really is as dumb as all that, he'll receive harsher, ''more appropriate'' sanction.

 

 

::::: Either I ''am'' abusing my admin cred and going too far, or I am not. There is no ''may''. ''May'' is just being tendentious. And accusing me of such a misdeed without evidence is casting aspersions. Typical Internet flaming, really, but prohibited by Wikipedia policies. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Has it perhaps occurred to you that my using the (grossly provocative) word "may", might have something to do with the fact that that isn't my call to make? As for evidence, I think you ''may'' have done a decent job of displaying your bias on your own in this thread.

 

 

== Proposal for arbitration enforcement requests to have a more flexible focus ==

None of us is perfect. We have all been newbies, and we've all made mistakes and done things we regret. I hope this renewed attempt to get back in the saddle and ride better will succeed. I wish Technophant success. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 02:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 

*I agree with Guy, Technophant should have tpa and e-mail back. I hardly ever remove talkpage access myself, and if it's done, in the case of good-faith users it seems likely tpa can be restored once they've simmered down. The extent of my involvement here was to remove e-mail privileges, on request from Brangifer who had received an abusive e-mail (and who is supporting a second chance above). Technophant isn't requesting unblock and was blocked for serious reasons (socking), so I'm not addressing a potential second chance. I can see one down the road, though. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 07:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

 

{{archivetop|1=Article protected by {{u|Ceradon}}. <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small>^{<span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]]</span>}</small> 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}}

at [[Lenore_Skenazy]]. Recent vandalism. [[User:SPECIFICO |<span style="color:#0011FF;"> '''SPECIFICO'''</span>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 02:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

== RfC for binding administrator recall ==

{{Clear}}

== Appeal of topic ban ==

A little more than a year ago I was toppic banned ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Antidiskriminator_2 link]). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.

 

:::::::: I made an argument, but because I used completely trivial terminology that can be misconstrued as an appeal to ethnic bias, you ignored it. The ethnicity, nationality, location and whatever other property of those people advocating the disruption of the Pavle Đurišić article is immaterial. The fact that it happened and may continue to happen in the future unless this is cleared up - is what is important in this discussion. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: JFTR I explained further at [[User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors]] now. Let's link the old discussion here too: [[Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy]]. That is about the "decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD)" from above. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:: If I was actually into draconic purges, perhaps I would have purged some of your meaningless flamewars over the years, but as we can see you're still here to flame me. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

:::Again, just zip it with the personal stuff. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 

::::: Director, we have been on the same and different sides of arguments in the past, but in the recent past you have not been the one who has been dealing with Antid when he returns to type. Joy (and I) do, along with {{u|Tomobe03}} and {{u|23 editor}}. And others like IJA. It's nice that you (and others) think Antid should be given even more rope than he's already had from two increasingly-wide topic bans, but you won't be there dealing with it. I have no interest in nationalism on any side in the Balkans, and I am on the same page (if not the same paragraph) as Joy on this one. Far from grovelling, Antid shows no signs of contrition whatsoever, and has outlined no plan to avoid the same behaviour as got him banned in the past (twice). On that basis alone, he should be subjected to a "one strike and you're out" probation period at best, and retention of the t-ban as it is at worst. Please keep your conflicts with Joy out of this. Thanks, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 06:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::: I really am. Peacemaker, this guy has been hammered twice: If he's a marginally ''sentient being'', he'll know to shut up and behave. If not, I say lower the boom on him. You absolutely have a point, I haven't been there recently, and I won't be dealing with him if he gets back (you know I appreciate the damage control you do) - but I'm NOT suggesting you be forced to deal with more of his disruption. If he starts again, you ought to be able to put a stop to it by the quick procedure. Hence, like I said: he seems serious, he seems like he cares about not getting further sanctions. Put him on probation, two years, something like that. And take this into consideration: if he really is as dumb as all that, he'll receive harsher, ''more appropriate'' sanction.

 

 

::::: Either I ''am'' abusing my admin cred and going too far, or I am not. There is no ''may''. ''May'' is just being tendentious. And accusing me of such a misdeed without evidence is casting aspersions. Typical Internet flaming, really, but prohibited by Wikipedia policies. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Has it perhaps occurred to you that my using the (grossly provocative) word "may", might have something to do with the fact that that isn't my call to make? As for evidence, I think you ''may'' have done a decent job of displaying your bias on your own in this thread.

 

{{od}}{{ping|EdJohnston}} this just went to archive, and Antid deserves a decision on his appeal. Cheers, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

*{{ping|Drmies|JzG|Guy Macon}}

This user was indefinitely blocked in 2008, and then engaged into sockpuppeting (see: [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu/Archive]]). She was unblocked on 6 July 2015 by {{U|MaxSem}} after a successful unblock request (see: [[User talk:Fangusu]]). But, just several days later (on 18 July), the user started IP socking again. She admitted it after being accused of sockpuppeting (see: [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu]]). This is obviously deliberate logged-out editing used to avoid scrutiny (see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=671241829&diff=prev][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=675929999&diff=prev],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=673581919&diff=prev][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=674007515&diff=prev],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=672217029&diff=prev][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=675930414&diff=prev]). Not just that the editor wants to give expression of being another person, but she uses logged-out editing to attack other editors (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zapp_Brannigan&diff=prev&oldid=675930218 this edit summary]). Obviously, this editor has not learned anything from her 7 years of being blocked. I propose to ban her from Wikipedia. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<span style="color:#008B8B;">Vanjagenije</span>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<span style="color:#F4A460;">(talk)</span>]]''' 23:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

* '''Support site ban''' per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. I agree that she has apparently not learned a darn thing. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small>^{<span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]]</span>}</small> 02:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support''' To return to the same behavior that brought about the block shows that they are [[WP:NOTGETTINGIT]]. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]&#124;[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 02:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. I rarely support these requests, since they're normally made either in bad faith ("this admin deleted my page; ban him!") or for people who already haven't a hope of getting unblocked. This editor's not so bad that she couldn't be unblocked, and normally someone who requests unblock after several years is reformed, but she's proven herself otherwise: if you don't change after this much time, you're not likely to change. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 13:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't recall why SunCountryGuy01 was blocked. MauchoEagle was blocked for being a sock of SCG01. Marcusknight was also me -- my most ignominious one, really. As for the way forward, I will resign my bit tomorrow (I'm a bit shaken up right now) and go for reconfirmation. If the community sees fit to look past my crimes, I will be forever indebted. <s>If it does not, I wouldn't necessarily feel okay with staying in a community that no longer trust me, so I would likely retire and ride off into the sunset. At least I would have known that I served the community in whatever capacity I could.</s> <small>This could too easily be considered [[emotional blackmail]]. It certainly was not intended as such.</small>

 

:It was certainly the right thing to do. Although it would have been best to disclose up front the fact you did so far after there would have been any chance of other parties finding out shows positive character. I'll almost certainly be supporting your reconfirmation RfA, though I was part of the discussion that came to the arbcom conclusion. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' ^{[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]} 06:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

:Likely it is only a few checkusers who even remember who SunCountryGuy01 was. I sure didn't, and I became a CU during the time MauchoEagle was in use. While I too wish you had done this before going to RFA, that you came clean when no one would have ever remembered or suspected is highly honourable and speaks well of you. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 06:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

*A noble gesture, though I would reconsider your statement that should the reconfiration not succeed that you will retire: though you probably did not mean it as such, this could be seen as [[emotional blackmail]]. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 10:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

*Thank you for coming clean, Ceradon, but I'm confused by your reasoning as you describe it above. You say you could claim you forgot about the previous accounts but then you say that's "bullshit" and you've actually been misleading the community since day one of the "Ceradon" account...but then you also say that as soon as you "recalled" your previous accounts, you told arbcom. Is it the case that you didn't remember you had older accounts until now, and immediately told Arbcom when you did remember? Or is it the case that you've known about your old accounts since you began your current account, and you went through RFA, etc while concealing that information? I don't know about anyone else, but one of those strikes me as a far worse offense than the other and I'd like to know which I'm dealing with. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

*It seems that the SunCountryGuy01 account was blocked because of something discussed in email and is not available for us to really take a look at. We don't know if it was a disruptive account. However, it seems like you have genuinely tried to do the right thing here and come clean. I'm guessing they will strip you of your magical admin powers but since you're a valuable contributor, you should just stay around as an editor and keep doing excellent work. And then in a year or so think about being reconsidered as an admin. [[User:Wikimandia|<span style="color:#0066cc;">—'''''Мандичка'''''</span>]]^{[[User talk:Wikimandia|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''YO'''''</span>]]} 😜 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)