Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:33, 24 August 2007

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #41

• If you're here to request an admin action, consider using the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard
• If you need for me to be the one to deal with it, please email me. I do not expect any situations where I should be personally needed.

Your block of Matt57

Kylu, you invited Matt57 to edit articles that Elonka isn't editing. Which articles did you have in mind? Because to my knowledge, Matt57 isn't editing any articles that Elonka's editing (though she's invited him to do so.)Proabivouac 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: I've posted a an/i thread (link to it is on Matt57's talkpage, I'm sure you've seen it by now) regarding the situation. I realize you're his friend, and it's for this reason that I'm going to ask that you not do any unblocking yourself. Please, ask someone else to do this.

If you're his friend, you've got to see that this really just isn't healthy for either of them. Please, use the 24 hours provided to try to convince him to fixate elsewhere. I'm sure I've relegated myself to the deepest depths of wiki-hell for the sin of blocking a long-time contributor (yes, again, but with much more forethought this time, I promise you) but if there's a chance that just maybe this will persuade him to leave Elonka alone then it's worth it.

I'm really not looking forward to the headache this is going to cause me, but I'm trying to do the right thing here. On that note, I'm getting some Advil and going to sleep before this makes me grumpy in the morning. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks a bit awkward, some information seems to have gotten lost in the delete/restore process. Apologies... ~ Riana ⁂ 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's the private information I contacted you about, it's fine by me if it goes away; It shouldn't have been on here in the first place. Thanks for the help. Gonna go die for a while now, ciao. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodnight, Kylu. For tomorrow, if Matt57 posted personal information which Elonka hasn't disclosed herself, that's a big problem and obviously must be acted upon.

What the rest of this boils down to is, so far as I can discern, is her very strong desire to maintain her original research about her relatives in mainspace. Leaving Elonka alone is good, but that can't mean leaving her COI material alone. To threaten users who attempt to bring it into compliance with policy, whatever their motives, is just a continuation of the same conflict of interest she had when she created these articles.Proabivouac 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, what was private about the information I posted? Did you even investigate? That was public information posted on User:Elonka/About. May I ask how you were contacted about this block and what was said exactly? --Matt57 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have examined the circumstances leading to this block, and have come to the conclusion that it is both unwarranted and punitive. Hence, I have undone the block. Please see the thread on the admin board for details. >Radiant< 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have expressed my objections to this unblock in several places. "Unwarranted and punitive" seems a direct failure to assume good faith about your action. Your block had been endorsed by numerous admins at the time it was overturned. Radiant seems to merely have decided his judgment of the facts were better than yours. A poor decision in my opinion. WjBscribe 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant is entitled to his opinions, though it disturbs me that he's gone against what I see as consensus on the block. I certainly don't see it as punitive (obviously), simply hoping to persuade him to use the time to reconsider his course of action. I'm not Mike's mother, and if he continues this course, I'm not going to give him a spanking. I assume he's a grown adult and is willing to take responsibility for his own posts: I wanted to reinforce to him that his decision making was flawed and the fixation there seems to be inappropriate. I'm 0WW though, typically, so I'll leave it be. I'm not concerned about particular edits of Mike's, nor am I concerned about disputes nor content: I'm concerned that he's digging into the life of another editor for private reasons and not editorial ones. I'm concerned that he's still "researching" her even after she's given him "notice" to stop. Privately owned sites aren't WP:RS, right? Mike was wanting to remove unreliable sources and wikis from the articles? Then why visit her private wiki in the first place and start following links there? No reason, unless he's interested in her for reasons other than simple article-editing.

Y'know, I don't know Elonka. I have seen, but not voted on, her RfA. I've got people on either side of the vote there and quite frankly I don't know if she'll make a good admin or not. I'm a bit wary of having notable figures (per WP:NOTE, not per my opinion) be admins simply because of the COI potential. I personally like to stay far, far away from the article on my employer, for instance, and rather wish everyone did similarly. Is she a nice person? Probably. She hasn't left me any nasty template messages or called me dirty names to my face yet, nor either tried to dig up my real name and address to pester me to my knowledge, so I'm assuming she's a nice person. :D This doesn't magically mean she's my friend, it does however mean I'm willing to assume good faith on her actions.

Mike, this answer's just for you: Nobody. Nobody suggested a block to me, it was my own idea. The whole concept of an IRC cabal is flawed. The more accurate concept might be, "Off wiki conversation influencing on-wiki action." Was IRC involved? To some extent. There's a fast RC feed on IRC, similar to special:recentchanges, except it includes a bit more detail about the edits. The protocol used is IRC, sure, but the RC feeder certainly makes no suggestions as to appropriate action. This very edit will show up, along with the link to the diff, text moved, edit summary, etc... quite handy. So, I see your edit, click (actually I was going to start rolling back vandalism out of boredom) and stew a while on if to act or not. You've already had others ask you to leave Elonka alone. Elonka has asked you to leave Elonka alone. I've seen this on WP:ANI myself and in the RC. You don't leave her alone. Is it that hard to simply relent and let someone else handle the articles? Do you really think you have to be the one to fix the problems in them?

The link to the wiki really wasn't the issue, it's simply part of a greater pattern of ongoing Elonka-directed editing that quite frankly isn't needed here. It's intimidating, annoying, and abusive, and others on ANI have agreed. The fact that you don't see any merit at all in that view is at the root of the problem, in fact.

If any of the individuals involved believe that either my or Mike57's or Elonka's actions have been inappropriate, I'd suggest filing the RfC and notifying us of such. Maximum one RfC per recipient please, prices and participation may vary, void where prohibited.

In the interest of trying to maintain peace (and sanity?) I'm leaving the issue alone from now on, but I'm quite disappointed that instead of some sort of community effort to correct the situation, it's simply been dismissed by certain people who suggest that there's absolutely no problem here except some rouge admin blocking people willy-nilly and without consideration of the feelings of others. I'm quite near disgusted, actually, of our indifference.

Hopefully the wiki-drama ends soon, preferably with people leaving eachother's personal lives alone and getting back to editing articles and gnomish tasks. If I don't get any notifications of additional action, I'll assume the situation is resolved and we can move on. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not you and IRC inspired blocks again? Giano 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Hi Giano. The funny thing about it all was that earlier that night, I advised a newer admin to not block based on irc conversations, and if they felt inspired to do so because of it, to let someone else handle the situation instead. Yeah, me, really. The RC tool (which is, granted, IRC based, but more a more-detailed version of special:recentchanges than anything) is filtered through a program so I only see th change feed itself, then I can pick at anything that looks interesting.

...by the way, you know anyone that speaks Sinhalese? si.wikipedia needs more native speakers. I'd write (or at least translate) articles, but I don't speak the language. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I should point out that I have nowhere suggested that there is "absolutely no problem here"; indeed, I specifically mentioned there was a dispute, and suggested an RFC. I see both parties equally at fault with respect to intimidating, incivility, and following each other's contribs logs. Neither have I in any fashion suggested that the block was "bad faith", "rouge", "willy-nilly" or "without consideration", and I apologize if this can be read from my words, because that was never the intent. However, note that a "community effort to correct the situation" appears to have surfaced, as evidenced by recent edits to the articles in question, and threads on COIN and MFD. >Radiant< 09:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Gone off to play with an editing sock. Please leave harassing posts, policy violations, and unresolvable complaints here, not on any of the sock talkpages, thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)