| Revision as of 02:21, 28 December 2014 editKudpung (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors109,260 edits →No policy justification: fmt & gram, minor addition← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:50, 28 December 2014 edit undoIgor the bunny (talk | contribs)391 edits →Igor: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| :Thank you, I am infamous for missing obvious sarcasm. ] 01:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | :Thank you, I am infamous for missing obvious sarcasm. ] 01:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Igor == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Hope you don't mind me answering here instead of on ANI; several reasons - partly because it's busy and hard to edit, partly drama. | |||
| Replying inline; | |||
| :Igor, I see that you linked Draft:Igor Janev from your user page. Am I to take it you wrote this? | |||
| No, I did not. I saw it mentioned on Jimbo's talk page and responded as an IP; please see for how it began. | |||
| :If so it seems you are here to contribute and that your comments on Jimbo's page are the sincere result of your experience trying to contribute as a new user. That being said you are acting a bit pushy, putting archives on other peoples comments for one thing. You don't seem to be using the CSD templates right. I think you need to slow down and perhaps start by editing an existing article instead of trying to create or delete one. | |||
| Nope; I stand by every edit I have made. If you wish to discuss one or more, link diffs and let's talk about it. | |||
| :Please look through the links I welcomed you with on your talk page. Specifically the 5 pillars. There is a bit of a learning curve here when it comes to what is for keeping and what is for deleting. Chillum 03:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am very well aware of the 5 pillars. Please, look again at that first post - I'm sorry that because it was as an IP it may have been confusing. | |||
| I have a ''very'' full understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. <small>Yes, I have edited previously under another account; I ''hope'' that you understand that that is not a cardinal sin</small> | |||
| Best wishes to you. ] (]) 03:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:50, 28 December 2014
_by_Ron.jpg){kind=small}
 Talk page archives - Archive index | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
- Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.
No policy justification
Future Perfect at Sunrise, Kudpung, Basalisk, Bbb23, Chillum: Let me at least attempt to relieve ya'll of this misconception: neither the block, the talk page removal, the gravedancing comments, nor the full protection are "right." None of those actions does either of:
- improves the encyclopedia
- improves the editing environment
The personal attack cherry pick of a snarky reply to a snarky comment of the editor in the pair who is critical of Misplaced Pages administration is transparently lame, especially when the "victim" clearly states "If this has anything to do with my recent interactions with IHTS: I did not feel personally attacked by this editor in any way. I have no idea what the block is about, and I hope it has nothing to do with me. " Regarding the "disruption" of the arbcom case, a) the page was managed by a capable clerk, and b) the case was essentially over by the time of the block, so there's little preventative value here. I was tempted to ask Bbb23 to link to the policy justifying talk page removal, but that would just be pointy, as I know, and he should know, there is no such policy. Finally, if justification for talk page removal is the fallacious "you can only use the talk page to discuss unblocking," there's obviously no reason for others to be commenting now.
As IHTSO wasn't pinging anyone or using the uw-unblock template, there's no disruption unless folks are watching his talk page; and if anyone finds that disruptive, the solution is to unwatch it.
Neither is the full protection -- although well intentioned -- beneficial. Many editors many not have gone through the trouble of setting up a wiki only email account and are unwilling to sacrifice their privacy; in addition research has shown:
ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities.
— Schroeder, Wagner, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology(Schroeder, A., Wagner, C. (2012). Governance of open content creation: A conceptualization and analysis of control and guiding mechanisms in the open content domain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(10):1947–59 DOI)
Being award the administrator WP:UAL isn't supposed to be a license to make stuff up, it's intended as a trust to responsibility use tools to enforce community policies.
Unfortunately, although this behavior certainly isn't right, it is tolerated in the dysfunctional Misplaced Pages:: space because the IHTSO is an unsympathetic party here. His valid criticisms are buried in unsubtle over the top rhetoric which ventures into personal attack territory, and he has some ridiculous "I won't post an unblock request" martyr thing going, which means there's no way I could get traction to get anything reversed. Please understand that's a failure of the system, not "validation" the actions taken here are correct.
The question ya'll should have been asking -- in two weeks, after the block times out -- is IHTSO more likely to more collegial, or less collegial?? The answer is less. Remember, this was the guy who was called a narcissist by an editor, had the insult repeated by one admin and then validated by a former admin. There is a reason he's over the top critical of the admin corps; I had hoped that with the case finishing we could start to unwind that to get him back in the mode of being what's actually important -- a mainspace editor. Instead there's just more ill-considered admin actions and comments. NE Ent 20:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if you have fully taken advantage if Misplaced Pages's transparency and really looked at the edits leading up to these actions. Several people have reviewed the situation, I am wondering if you have missed something. What specifically do you object to? One thing at a time please. Chillum 20:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've looked at the edits. It seems counterproductive to me to rehash what I just said item by item, but okay, first thing: the block. NE Ent 20:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- An editor with a history of personal attacks, and who has been given prior warnings about personal attacks, and a history of blocks for personal attacks makes a personal attack and... gets blocked for personal attacks. Seems right to me.
- It seems the only argument you have made is that another editor did not get blocked for personal attacks. Other people's behavior does not justify the behavior in another, not with adults. If you have an issue with Doc, take it up with Doc.
- I am also not going to go over every point you made because they do not lead me to any obvious conclusions. If there are any other concerns I am happy to hear them. Chillum 20:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realize there was an "obvious conclusion" ceiling on the quality of discourse you wish to engage in. That's fine, it's your talk and I've pretty much said what I have to say. Thanks at least for removing the gravedancing comments. NE Ent 20:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I only mentioned obvious conclusion because it was not clear what you wanted, or if you wanted anything other than information. I asked to deal with things one at a time so I could respond clearly.
- I am glad you agree with the removal of the earlier comments, it was in the interest of fairness that I protected the page rather than let one side continue while stopping the other. The user can still use e-mail I believe. Chillum 20:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I want to avoid losing a 39,000 / 66% mainspace editor. I want editors with admin tools to think more, and more deeply, when using the toolset. Is FPaS going to reverse their block, or you (or anyone else) unblocking ITHSO -- assuming he continues his stupid refusal to submit an unblock request -- going to happen? Of course not. But maybe folks will think just half a second longer the next time, and think about what's the best course of action instead of settling for what's allowable. And I'd appreciate you unprotecting the page for the reasons given above, to allow editors to publicly encourage ITHSO. NE Ent 20:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) What that tool does not tell you is how many editors leave the project due to hostile behavior by other editors. Take a look at this users block log and you will see that this block is unlikely to change their behavior or drive them away. The purpose of the block is to prevent further abuse for the duration of the block.
- This user has been given plenty of patience in the form of discussion, warnings and shorter blocks. There is a context to this situation that goes beyond edit count. Chillum 20:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- You just agreed with my removal of those discouraging the users behavior in a place where they cannot respond but you want me to allow encouraging? I am not going to allow one side and not the other. If you want to encourage this user then use the e-mail option, if you want to discuss the block publicly then use ANI. I am not going to remove the protection for the reasons you have given. Chillum 20:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@NE Ent: since you pinged me (along with FPS, Basalisk, and Bbb23), I'll answer here. Like Ihardlythinkso, as a non-admin you appear to have a remarkable propensity for frequenting the drama fora, and like here, starting or participating in discussions of a particular nature. With only 8% of your edits being to mainspace I'm not sure that your involvment in all those other areas is actually helpful towards either resolving individual issues or in the longer term, achieving more harmony between admins and other editors.
Admin observations that do not require a response from the blocked user are not 'grave dancing', are appropriate and are for the information of the user and others who visit that page. Blocks and talk page access withdrawal are preventative (and there are sufficient recent precedents) , and that also means that they can be used when patterns of behaviour emerge. Patterns of negative behaviour (from admins or non-admins) do not 'improve the encyclopedia' or 'improve the editing environment' . Nor, however, does tarring the entire admin corps with the same brush - which seems to be a pastime of the apologists for incivility by prolific content creators.
Patterns take place over extended periods of time, and often require extended or repeated blocks to supress them. Patterns can be evidenced by diffs, somtimes numbering in the hundreds, especially if in their user space some users maintain lengthy polemic sections, or often post ostensibly negative unsolicited comments about other users. A warm and welcoming working environment on Misplaced Pages (and that includes what one sees on user pages) transcends the need for keeping disruptive users on board and if sanctions mean losing possible future content from an author, it is collateral damage we need to live with. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: close
It's not exactly clear based on what you wrote, but in case you don't know, User:N-HH was being sarcastic, not serious. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, I am infamous for missing obvious sarcasm. Chillum 01:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Igor
Hi,
Hope you don't mind me answering here instead of on ANI; several reasons - partly because it's busy and hard to edit, partly drama.
Replying inline;
- Igor, I see that you linked Draft:Igor Janev from your user page. Am I to take it you wrote this?
No, I did not. I saw it mentioned on Jimbo's talk page and responded as an IP; please see this edit for how it began.
- If so it seems you are here to contribute and that your comments on Jimbo's page are the sincere result of your experience trying to contribute as a new user. That being said you are acting a bit pushy, putting archives on other peoples comments for one thing. You don't seem to be using the CSD templates right. I think you need to slow down and perhaps start by editing an existing article instead of trying to create or delete one.
Nope; I stand by every edit I have made. If you wish to discuss one or more, link diffs and let's talk about it.
- Please look through the links I welcomed you with on your talk page. Specifically the 5 pillars. There is a bit of a learning curve here when it comes to what is for keeping and what is for deleting. Chillum 03:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I am very well aware of the 5 pillars. Please, look again at that first post - I'm sorry that because it was as an IP it may have been confusing.
I have a very full understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Yes, I have edited previously under another account; I hope that you understand that that is not a cardinal sin
Best wishes to you. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)