Misplaced Pages

Blocked

I've blocked you again for incivility. Specifically, for this edit summary. Saying "it only works that way in your rabid inclusionist head" is a severe personal attack. Given that 2 weeks didn't seem to work and this happened 2 days after your block expired, I've increased the length of the block to a further month. You really need to tone down the way you speak to other editors. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Redacted PA, and removed access to talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Increased to indefinite after that email (I've also blocked email and talk access due to abuse). If you wish to contest the block you can do so by email the unblock mailing list (unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org) or directly to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org). Ryan Postlethwaite 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd ask if you learned anything here, but I fear that may be a waste of time, and you currently can't respond anyway, so... HalfShadow

• I'm no fan of Roux's, but is that one edit summary Ryan quoted from really worth an indefinite block, no matter what may or may not have been in the private email(s) between the pair of them? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not really about the one edit, or one email he sent me. It's more the fact that he has shown that he is completely unable to work in a collegial manner with other contributors. Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, but I would expect a substantial amount of time away from the project is needed for Roux to change his perspective. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You said "specifically, for this edit summary", nothing about him not being able to work in a "collegial manner". Is there a "collegial manner" policy that Roux has breached? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The email was purely the straw that brought the camels back. I would say that incivility and personal attacks is prima facie evidence that he is unable to work in a collegial manner. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • It appears that you escalated the block because of a private email that you received, nothing at all to do with a "collegial manner". --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
          • His edit pattern basically consists of reminding the admins they're 'fucking idiots', picking fights and complaining. I fail to see this a net loss. HalfShadow 20:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
            • What you "fail to see" is neither here nor there. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
              • I failed to see your 'quitting' in a huff any sort of loss either. Any chance you could do it for real this time? I have donuts. HalfShadow 21:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
                • You clearly fail to see many things; your problem, not mine. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
                • I see a fight here that doesn't need fought. Please, both just drop it? It really seems storm in a teacup here. The last we need is moar dramah. Blood Red Sandman 21:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
                  • If I'm not satisfied that Ryan has acted appropriately here, and currently I'm not, I'll be taking this matter further. I'm no friend of Roux's, but I do insist on honesty and integrity, which I'm not seeing here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
                    • That wasn't the fight I was talking about, it was the petty "Why don't you leave" "Your problem, not mine" that it had degenerated into, and that wasn't helping any. Blood Red Sandman 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
                      • Yeah, well, at the end of the day, I still have donuts. Call it a win for me. Now to put on some coffee. Want some, Sandman? HalfShadow 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
                        • So long as I'm not seen to be taking sides, sure :p Blood Red Sandman 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Forward that email to iain <dot> macdonald <at> wikinewsie <dot> org and I'll give a second opinion. That, I hope, would clear that up. Blood Red Sandman 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That would go some way towards reassuring me that Ryan hasn't just extended the block out of pique or hurt feelings, which is what it looks to me right now. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to the transcript I saw, Roux challenged him to increase it to indef, called him an idiot, a wanker, and escalated from there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So it was silly name calling then by an editor who'd just been blocked. Aren't administrators expected not to respond equally childishly? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Note the word "escalated" in my comment above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader. Escalated it to what? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeline:

Roux has been warned and blocked numerous times for incivility and personal attacks, including several times this month alone per his block log.

Prior to today, his most recent blocked expired just yesterday.

Upon resuming editing today, his edits consisted over swearword implied edit summaries or personal attack edit summaries. No article contributions, just diving right back into disputes.

After I warned him about incivility, his response was to antagonistically tell me off rather than say to apologize and drop a swear word laden reply and edit summary on another admin's talk page.

When I asked an admin for help, he then posted a mocking, laughing and once again swear word laden reply (rather than say apologize, ignore, or something to deescalate tensions.

Next, once an admin took action, rather than post an unblock request, apologize, etc., he tossed out more personal attacks in an edit summary and in posts.

It was clear that warnings and short blocks are not going to restrain this editor and moreover, his edits today after his block expired have not been mainspace contributions, but rather jumping back into drama. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility warnings are thrown around like confetti at a wedding. Anything more substantial to add to explain why this block was extended? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never encountered Roux actually contributing to Misplaced Pages, just getting into disputes and swearing at and insulting other editors. I cannot see any reason for him not to be blocked. His block log and majority of edits after his most recent block expired reveal as much. Again, no article edits today, just attacking editors or jumping into other disputes on admin boards. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So which policy has Roux breached by not, in your view, "contributing to wikipedia"? Do the sad crew who hang around ANI, for instance, "contribute to wikipedia"? Opposing voices are necessary for a healthy environment, but that's not the issue here. The issue is why was Roux's block extended, and that's what I want to see an answer for. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mature opposing voices are useful. Swearing, name-calling, laughing at, etc. bring nothing to a serious discussion. When someone has been warned dozens of times and blocked almost as many and responds by telling people to do somethin with genitals, are you suggesting we should somehow reward that behavior? Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not punishment, that's preventative, because when someone comes back from a NPA block and starts right in with the PAs, you have a pretty good idea that nothing's changing in the near future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I want to see a convincing explanation for "increased to indefinite after that email". Roux's behaviour is what it is; I'm concerned about Ryan's behaviour. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he responded to the initial block by telling people off, bring up genitals, swear words, etc., i.e. not apologizing, not saying he will tone things down, but reacting with even more overblown incivility that indicates 1) he is not interested in administrative warnings and blocks after receiving many of them and 2) is not interesting in editing civilly. If he is unwilling to abide by so many different admin and editors' opinions and to treat other editors with respect of any kind, what purpose is there in allowing him to edit any further? Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently got shot down at block review on something similar, so I can certainly sympathise with that. Although, my main reason for the harsh block was because I'm more used to another project's stronger policy. But, I'm starting to digress... Blood Red Sandman 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I read the email, which Ryan forwarded to me. Having done that, it seems very obvious to me that not only does this user have no desire to obey policy, he is deliberate in his efforts not to comply. He actually says, in block caps, "Oh noez a personal attack" after he takes one of several swipes at Ryan. This is not an isolated incident; in the end, it is clear that Roux has no desire to abide by this central policy and will not just breach it when it suits him but actively set out to do so. I therefore endorse this block. Blood Red Sandman 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That may be clear to you, but what's clear to me is that Ryan got the hump because he felt insulted in a private email. Let's all say it together: "Oh, the poor darling". --Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not playing your games Malleus. If anyone else has issue with my block, my talk page is open. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is no game. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, well how's this? I'd have blocked myself had Ryan shown me that and asked for a second opinion. Nothing was aimed at me, no getting the hump. Blood Red Sandman 00:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point. I want to know why Ryan escalated the block. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already told you why I escalated the block - I was considering it after I blocked for a month. I was looking over his previous block log and there were clear signs that his attitude towards others was incompatible with Misplaced Pages. Previous blocks had little or no effect on changing his behaviour and there was nothing to suggest a one month block was going to fix the problems either. As I was reviewing to decide whether or not to escalate it, he made two separate personal attacks (one on here, and one by email) which were some of the most disgraceful I've ever seen in my time here - I wouldn't expect that off a vandal even. It made it clear in my mind that what his conduct towards other editors was not on par with out standards and any infinite block was unlikely to succeed in changing that, so I extended the block to indefinite. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not stop taking the piss Ryan. I've seen the most outrageous language from administrators, but nobody batted an eyelid. So what did Roux say to you that gave you the confidence to block him indefinitely, without thinking that there may be repercussions for you? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've explained my position enough now. If you don't like it, take it to AN. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the irony of taking a complaint about an administrator to a noticeboard that only administrators and their wannabees waste their time at not escape you? You have explained nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For once, I'm on Malleus' side. It's unacceptable for an administrator to block an established editor based on off-Misplaced Pages evidence. Since the Durova arbitration case, it's been emphasised—perhaps not codified, but definitely known—that only uninvolved functionaries have the remit to issue such sanctions. Sceptre 17:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of their being a policy on what "functionaries" involved or uninvolved, can do that other editors can not. Prodego 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, an involved admin shouldn't take action. So he/she must defer to someone uninvolved. However, functionaries are the only people that can act on private off-wiki evidence. Especially in cases of bans, the ArbCom are the only one allowed to discuss off-wiki evidence privately; anyone else would need an on-wiki consensus. There are plenty of cases where admins and other established editors have been harassed but have deferred to, most often, arbcom-l, although sometimes oversight-l will mop up cases too menial for the committee to handle. Sceptre 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that an administrator would know that, wouldn't you, but when they get the scent of blood common sense appears to go out the window. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If Postlethwaite continues to prevaricate and obfuscate than there will be no choice but to escalate the issue of the way he uses his administrator rights, all the way to ArbCom if necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User page

Per your edit summary, I requested that your user page be deleted, so please don't blame the deleter. I hope that after some period of time you relax and consider contributing to non-heated areas either by getting this account unblocked or by the obvious method. Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Random placement of comment...

I'm not usually in for grave dancing, but since an entire palace complex has already been erected here:

Roux, what the fuck are you thinking? You're on a hair-trigger about perceived or actual slights to yourself (viz your construance of what is "lied ahout me"), but you have been raging about using whatever personal characterizations your emotions see fit (not the same thing as what your reason might say). You have very clearly crossed the line multiple times lately, are you just trying to make a POINT about how editors get treated differently? We've discussed this before privately (and briefly). I'll tell you right now that the way to resolve that sort of problem is not to model worst-behaviour, it is to model best-behaviour. Just think about if you got into an ArbCase, would you want to be someone arguing that you should be pardoned 'cause the other guy was worse or would you want to be the person who everyone can see took a calm and rational approach through the whole dispute? Which way would the decision come more quickly, and which way is more likely to resolve in your favour? You already have my email address, so replying won't be a problem; I just thought this would be better served as a public statement. You make very intelligent and useful contributions when your brain is in gear, we shouldn't have to lose that just because you're often also a dickhead. You have no choice on being intelligent, you do have a choice on being a dickhead. Franamax (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)