Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:37, 23 December 2006

• 20060127
• 20060409
• 20060508
• 20060713
• 20060906
• 20061017
• 20061117
• 20061207
• 20070101
• 20070201
• 20070301
• 20070401
• 20070501
• 20070601
• 20070701
• 20070801
• 20070901
• 20071101
• 20071201
• 20080101
• 20080201
• 20080301
• 20080401
• 20080501
• 20080601
• 20080701
• 20080801
• 20080901
• 20081001
• 20081101
• 20081201
• 20090101
• 20090201
• 20090301
• 20090401
• 20090701
• 20090801
• 20090901
• 20091001
• 20091101
• 20091201
• 20100101
• 20100201
• 20100301
• 20100401
• 20100501
• 20100601
• 20100701

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Eagle_101 Userspace deletion

Hey beta, what's the meaning behind the deletion of all those pages in Eagle_101's namespace? o_o; Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I did that per a request of eagle on IRC helping clear out his userspace. All I deleted were redirects within his userspace Betacommand 17:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Block of Irpen (talk · contribs)

Hi, there. I must admit I'm a tad concerned over your block of Irpen. I'm normally not one to wikilawyer, but while his comments were inappropriate on WP:PAIN, he wasn't given any warning (nor a block message after the block), so I think it might be a good idea to bring this up on WP:ANI as it seems to be a controversial block. Thanks. Cowman109 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Cowman's concern. Are you planning to leave Irpen a block message any time soon? Bishonen | talk 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I think this whole thing is quickly blowing up a lot more than it has to, and I feel responsible. Could someone leave a block message on his page, and let him cool down for however long the block is? I would myself, but I fear that'd just escalate the situation. I think the whole matter, at this point, could use some disengagement and cooling down. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, Betacommand, the block was placed at 23:51, 25 minutes ago, and you have neither placed a block message on Irpen's page nor responded to concerns voiced here. Please respond, either here or on ANI, or I feel I'll have to unblock. Bishonen | talk 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't believe Betacommand is online right now. At the top of his page: "I am currently away" ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have to suggest you yourself don't do the unblocking, Bishonen, as you are clearly involved from incidents in the past, no offense. It would be better if a neutral administrator saw to this, lest we have a wheel war on our hands. An ANI report could handle that part. Cowman109 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The could just request {{unblock}}, could they not? I'm rather leery of this thing blowing up more if posted to ANI, myself :| Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Cowman, and I won't if it's inappropriate, but the thing is, nobody knows about this block except people who happened to see the note on WP:PAIN--Betacommand hasn't posted the block anywhere, which is exactly the trouble. How do you figure I'm involved with Irpen? I don't know him. Do you mean I'm involved because I've posted on WP:PAIN, in the same thread as he did? Isn't that a little tenuous? Bishonen | talk 00:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I think he drew that implication from the statement "I'll take a shot, Piotrus". I'm not saying it's correct, but I think that's where they got it. Can we just try to calm down a bit, all of us? All of this started over what I suppose was an overreaction on my part - let's not continue it with further overreactions, okay? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Take a shot" at reviewing the warning of Ghirlandajo, yes. I didn't see that as anything to do with Irpen. And Cowman talks about "the past". Cowman, you were the one I asked, I'd appreciate an answer. Peter, frankly, to me you're the only one here that doesn't seem calm. What exactly is it you're urging us to do/not do? Are you saying unblocking Irpen would be an "overreaction"? Bishonen | talk 00:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I was looking through WP:PAIN#Ghirlandajo_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 and I fail to see any personal attack by Irpen having sufficient venom to warrant a block, especially the 48h long. Please provide a rationale for this block Alex Bakharev 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling it was sustained attacks on the integrity of Peter. No comment on whether it merited a block or not. Daniel.Bryant 00:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was in part due to such notes such as this diff, an edit that only served to inflame matters by suggesting people were ganging up on IRC against Ghirlandajo. I don't believe that such comments warranted a block, especially without warning, but I do agree his comments were unnecessarily inflammatory as he seemed to put too much emphasis, in my opinion, explaining how he believed the user who issued the warning to Ghirlandajo was inexperienced and foolish, while this matter could have gone so much more smoothly if it was simply mentioned that he believed such a warning was inappropriate without all the comments about user behavior. This is really being blown out of proportion. Cowman109 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel a block in this case is definitely a knife's edge borderline case. I would have felt a lot more comfortable with it, however, if there was at least a warning on their talk page. As this was not the case, I noted the block on the PAIN report. I dont want this blown out proportion any more than it has, so if they request an unblock and are not going to bother me or further aggrivate PAIN, I'm okay with it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the block is to do with Irpen's behaviour on WP:PAIN. Anyway, just to let all know that I've added {{npa5}} and details of when the block expires onto Irpen's user talk page. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cowman that Irpen's criticism of IRC was misplaced and unnecessary inflammatory. I also agree with Bishonen and Cowman that the matter does not warrant a block. Since there seems to be a consensus that the block was excessive and Betacommand is not here to explain his block I am unblocking Irpen Alex Bakharev 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection here. Cowman109 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he knows that he's been blocked by now, Heligoland. It would have been good if Betacommand had given specific reasons and preferably some example of a personal attack—this both for the information of the user, and to make the block reviewable by other admins without fumbling in the dark. Anyway, I've posted a request for review on WP:ANI. Not an "overreaction" to a 48-hour hit-and-run block for unspecified personal attacks, in my opinion. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Oh, good. Alex, please make a note of your action on ANI. Cowman, for the third time of asking, would you mind telling me how you reckon I was "involved"? Bishonen | talk 01:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

The user now being unblocked, I don't see there being any positive outcome from dragging the issue on further. He was (in our conjecture) blocked over, as Bryant put it, "sustained attacks on the integrity of Peter". I'm not complaining any further. I don't have an issue. I just want this done with. So let's not drag it on, please? There is no reason to drag an admin who seems to have acted in good faith to ANI for a minor misstep. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that this block was misplaced. Irpen should have received a npa template at best, it is Ghirla who made most of the offences in this case. Either way, don't worry, Beta, we all make mistakes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, while your own desysopping is under discussion on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus, any anti-Ghirlandajo rant is misplaced. As for Betacommand's actions, I view his abuse of tools as disruptive and strongly urge to start a desysopping process on this issue. If I'm not mistaken, some IRC advice played a part in his "decision". It's enough to check the previous thread to see what dictates his admin actions. --Ghirla 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Desysopping is grossly excessive. There's no evidence that Betacommand acted in anything other than good faith in blocking a user he believed was being uncivil towards another user. I'm a regular on IRC and all the admins I know won't block just because a friend asks them for a block, they are always conscious about following the rules, whether it be warnings for vandalism, warnings for spam or ensuring there is truth to any allegation made of any other user. If a totally unknown user posted a complaint about Irpen on IRC or on Misplaced Pages and Betacommand was about, I know Betacommand would act in the same manner. I also think the block was justified but can accept that a lack of prior warnings over Irpens conduct is a concern here. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 08:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A 48-hour-block for an established contributor with no previous history of civility blocks was justified? Justified by what? Sorry, I don't follow your line of thought. --Ghirla 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Irpen's conduct towards Peter on WP:PAIN - Totally unacceptable in my opinion. Irpen has avoided blocks before but he's certainly not an innocent party in this, he was spotted removing civility warnings from another users talk page by Cyde earlier on yesterday too. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 08:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Only because Cyde had no business placing them there in the first place. Giano 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I wish I had no business placing them there, but alas, you make it necessary. When will you realize that your rampant incivility is only getting you and your friends in trouble, and that you would be best served by taking it down a half dozen notches? --Cyde Weys 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please check your facts Cyde - don't you care at all what the community thinks of your actions? Are you're IRC friends happy about your behaviour? Giano 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I am sorry for not placing a notice in the user's talk page I had a real world issue to handle. I pressed the save button an walked away to handle that. when I came back I had a "loss of session data" error. the reason behind the block? plain and simple personal attacks. if you read the PAIN thread you can clearly see the attacks both on wizardry dragon and the other users. there is a zero tolerance for personal attacks, I have see a several personal attacks from Irpen. that is why I blocked. 48 hours might have been slightly too much but in regard to personal attacks i dont think so Betacommand 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Cyde never contacted me over this issue on IRC or wiki. Betacommand 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not placing a notice, but not sorry for the block? Recalcitrance, lack of conferring with others, deciding "there is zero tolerance" and then, and here's the sneaky part, deciding that a personal attack has taken place, and all without any conferring with anyone! Amazingly bad behavior, there. That you then went offline and only explained anything, to anyone, here, on your own talk page, a day later only makes the offense worse. How about this: there is zero tolerance for unilateralism. Confer, confer, confer, and do it on Misplaced Pages. Go to AN/I and ask. Go to AN/I and announce (second choice) as you explain. By all means, though, seek resolution long before you reach for the block button. Warn. Plead. Wheedle, if necessary. Count to ten. Count to a hundred. While you count, ask other people what they think. Doing none of those is abusive. Geogre 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Let us find out what happened

I'm concerned to have been told that Betacommand was also involved in initiating the block of Giano. Is that right, Betacommand, and if so, could you say what's going on? My apologies if I have it wrong, but I'd appreciate some clarification. SlimVirgin 06:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin the only part that I played was asking for a {{npa}} warning for Giano II as some of the comments that they made where pa's. I did not ask for or want a block in this situation all that I asked for was a simple npa warning, nothing more. I knew as an involved party that I should not do so. So I asked for a unbiased third party to take a look and if needed issue the warning. I had no knowledge of said block until I came back online over an hour later. Betacommand 15:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please point out where I have ever addressed a remark directly to you, or mentioned your name? Giano 07:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

the comments that were in question were not necessarily to me with your infantile and hostile warnings in the future _{copied from:WP:ANI#Giano.27s_rampant_incivility} Oh look everyone another little IRC kid has turned up! _{copied from:WP:ANI#Giano.27s_rampant_incivility} and there are others along with your previous block for personal attacks. Betacommand 16:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

..."and there are others along with your previous block for personal attacks." Why would you want an npa to cover comments for which someone had already been previously blocked? Doesn't that make them "old business"? – SAJordan _contribs 19:26, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).

The previous matter did affect the npa warning other than to show that this there is a history of npa. Betacommand 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Last night you instigated a conversation in IRC with words stating clearly that I threatened to have you desysoped and banned along with Cyde. I want the diff for that, not that with Cyde, for you. I want to see the truth of your statement.

• You then went on to ask for help which led to block of me for that reason. Either you were copy-pasting rather carelessly the words of another, or you were deliberately misleading. Which? If I don't have a straight answer we can go to all the others in that chat room discussing this with you and ask them what they understood you to mean. I'm not bothered I have nothing to lose. Giano 16:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I stated that, But I later stated that I had made a misquote about you in that statement and that it was Ghirlandajo on my talk page. Betacommand 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• No you did not make a mistake. You later claimed I had said to you "Are you're IRC friends happy about your behaviour?" So where did I say that to you? You did not mistake me for Ghirlandajo because you went on to say "Ghirlandajo's comments should be looked at". You were either misleading or copy pasting someone else's words. Which? Giano 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In case it clears up any confusion: in the previous section, "Block of Irpen", Giano directed the question "Are you're IRC friends happy about your behaviour?" to Cyde. At my window width, that question begins a new (unbulleted) line, the previous line being the (bulleted) first line addressing Cyde. A hasty reading might not connect the two lines, leaving the second seeming directed at Betacommand simply because this is his talk page.

I can't count the number of online (Usenet, blog, list) arguments I've seen which stemmed from misreadings or misrememberings of who said what to whom. May I suggest that one extra disadvantage of IRC is the immediacy, and thus haste, of discussion, allowing less time to check the record and think things over, making misreadings and misrememberings more likely? And that another disadvantage of IRC is the impossibility of anyone else going back and reviewing the record, then attaching to it clarifications like this? Sometimes you need more eyes on a topic than just whoever's online at the time. – SAJordan _contribs 18:55, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Also, the frequent absence of whitespace lines between separate comments here made it easy for those two lines of a single comment to misread as separate comments. If whitespace consistently separated comments here, it would have been more clear that these two lines, unseparated, were one comment. – SAJordan _contribs 19:11, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I am stepping back now before I say anything stupid, I am attempting to find a page that I saw yesterday. Betacommand 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I did not state that the comments were said to me, only that they were PA's Betacommand 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter to whom it was said, how does "Are you're IRC friends happy about your behaviour?" constitute a personal attack? – SAJordan _contribs 19:13, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Lets end this I had no part in having the block placed. end of story all I asked for was a npa warning. Betacommand 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

.

WHy was Baseballthinkfactory deleted? I strongly disagree with this decision. This site is mentioned regularly by ESPN, and is in the wikipedia article on Sabermetrics. This is one of the most important sites on the web for Sabermetrics, and its deletion was a huge mistatke.