Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:36, 6 September 2007

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled to prevent TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · block log · arb · SPI) from using it to make disruptive edits, such as abusing the {{unblock}} template. If you cannot edit this user talk page and you need to make a change or leave a message, you can request an edit, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

User talk:Rambutan/Archivebox

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.

Template:Add

Same Editor

How can you be sure it was the same editor on the Master talk page? They have different IP addresses. Kelpin 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony Crane

The article you tagged for speedy deletion, Tony Crane, is notable and I have asserted this. Mattythewhite 15:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the article. Mattythewhite 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Its good enough. But I've added another. Pleased now? Mattythewhite 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

German municipalities

You tagged several of my recently created articles about German municipalities for speedy deletion, and undeservedly IMO. I think I gave enough context for a stub article: that it is a municipality, and in which district, state and country it is located. Markussep 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A1 speedy deletions

Going through CAT:CSD, I've found several articles that you've tagged for A1 deletion ({{db-nocontext}}), which don't meet the criterion. WP:CSD#A1 is used on articles that are so short that there's no way to tell what they're about or to find references or more information on the subject. If an article could be fixed by a search on its subject matter, or by following links from it, then there's enough context to (in theory, at least) expand it, and it's not an A1 deletion; likewise, if it's more than a couple of sentences long, then there's almost certainly enough context to expand it, unless the article has other speediable problems (such as being nonsense). Could you check your {{db-context}} tagging more carefully in future? Thanks. --ais523 15:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Municipalties

PLease don't try to stop work at stubbing municipalities, Once they are set up the info boxes and details are added later. Any valid geographical place does not meet speedy criteria anyway however stubby they are. It fetting them onto the map so to speak. It might seem pointless now but several months down the line you will see what a great job we're all doing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

E.g like Bornheim, Südliche Weinstraße. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added info boxes to all the new that you put up for deletion now- aren;t I a great wikipedian!. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD

It is generally considered poor form to nominate an article for deletion within minutes of its creation, particularly when your objections are in part stylistic. Phil Sandifer 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your objection that the article does not clarify its notability sufficiently. It's something that, generally, a bit of time to finish honing the article is appreciated with. Phil Sandifer 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Obscuring the interface

Please note that the banner (bottom-right) on your user page/talk page obuscures the interface, and, in particular, blocks the contribs or GFDL link for some. It would be appreciated if you removed it. Thanks! GDonato (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, the fact that it blocked important links was a concern for some editors, you can use it in a better position. GDonato (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL violation

I think you misunderstand - the banner page itself violates the GFDL, as it displays the banner over the GFDL link. (As the banner page, by its nature, displays the banner.) Please do not restore the banner page, as it would be a violation of the GFDL for which you would be blocked. Phil Sandifer 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It still partially obscures. Perhaps if you rotated it and put it in the upper-left? That, I believe, is more or less safe in every skin. Phil Sandifer 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, this obscures the interface on a small browser (about 800px, which many people still use), and would almost certainly make the page extremely broken on an embedded browser like a PDA, Cell Phone, Wii, or so on. If you want to have the banner on your page, that's fine, but please make sure it stays within the borders of your text. Preferably, just make it a regular image banner, as that will have the best compatibility for everyone. --lucid 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even that's not fine - the biggest problem is that the actual banner page (User:Rambutan/Banner, by the nature of the code, displays the banner, and thus violates the GFDL on itself. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for a month for repeated and continued disruption. What follows is a limited list of recent disruptive activities for the benefit of whatever admin reviews this block.

1. Has, while remaining inside the 3RR, continued disruptive and frequent reversion on articles related to Doctor Who, often without explanation. He has been thrice blocked for 3RR violations in this area, and his continued edit warring remains disruptive.
2. Has obscured the flow of conversations on his talk page by altering indentations, and reverted when attempts to fix this were made.
3. Repeatedly restored a GFDL-violating template, and removed warnings about this template with misleading edit summaries identifying them as vandalism.
4. Continued to remove talk page comments that he feels are too off-topic, which is disruptive and unsupported by policy.

The month block is lengthy, though I do not believe it unreasonable - Rambutan's disruption has been repeated, and he has consistently returned from blocks unrepentant and with changes to his behavior that make, at best, an effort to stay within the letter of the law. This is, I believe, his fourth or fifth block in the last few months for 3RR and other disruptive behavior.

I will also note that my involvement with Rambutan has never gone beyond attempting to enforce policy and warn him about disruption. I have, to my knowledge, never had an editing dispute with him. Phil Sandifer 18:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

U/B request

TreasuryTag (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There's a standing ANI thread about this, but ultimately, Phil Wikistalks me and harasses me and looks for trouble. The GFDL nonsense was so petty it's beyond belief, and I believed I was working within IRC consensus. When he pointed out I was wrong, I stopped immediately. The removal of talkpage threads has community consensus and is generally approved by WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. Examples of my removals include this, by means of an example. If you decline, please state why quite explicitly, because I genuinely don't understand some of what's going on with all these blocks by Phil. NB: 3RR is irrelevant to this block because I've not done it for ages, not since the release of the last 3RR block.

Decline reason:

I'm refusing this as the user in question is abusive and really needs to take some time off from Misplaced Pages. The allegations against Phil are troublesome and I'd like to see an apology directed towards Phil before I'll even consider an unblock. I note that this refusal and previous others but Majorly were instantly reverted, which makes me think unblocking is unwise at this time. Nick 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Review (long)

I've reviewed the block (and talk page block) on this account. This was at the request of another admin, who wanted an impartial review by someone who had never come across thiseditor before and had no history with them of any kind. So this is mostly directed to Rambutan himself.

Rambutan's history

Rambutan - you seem to be a fairly well intentioned editor, who contributes. But you have to a great extent made your own position problematic. For example, a history both of 3RR violations, and of near-3RR violations. Also by deleting others comments that you don't like, mislabelling them as "vandalism" , and by demanding being asked nicely as the price of removing a problematic banner, or putting it back until asked the way you want to be asked. . This raised the problem from one of "problematic banner design" to "disruptive contributor" , and pissed Phil off for no great reason. You then responded to that by again removing it , citing incivility and requiring him to ask nicely or go to ANI, then adding a post saying it isn't deliberately disruptive anyhow, which he knew, and describing his term "disruptive" as a personal attack . I don't concur, and perhaps the preceding explains why. Fortunately at that point, GDonato did post a request as you wanted and you removed it -- a good call, but very evidently most of the rest was a case of Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point, and fairly everyday pointless escalation of a nothing, into a dispute. You knew at the start (because you could check yourself) that Phil's comment was an accurate statement of a problem about a banner. let it be. Fix it, comment if you don't like how he said it -- but don't breach WP:POINT until someone does it "how you want it".

Phil Sandifer's response and handling

I can't say how Phil is otherwise, but he talked sensibly and appropriately in this case: "I think you misunderstand - the banner page itself violates the GFDL, as it displays the banner over the GFDL link. (As the banner page, by its nature, displays the banner.) Please do not restore the banner page, as it would be a violation of the GFDL for which you would be blocked." No drama there, no attacks. Just commonsense and an attempt to explain once again, a view supported by others

Everyone wants to be asked nicely, but there is a degree of commonsense that says if theres a genuine, obvious, clear problem, deal with it, if necessary saying "You could ask nicely next time. But I have removed it anyway". That would avoid and defuse all the stress of it. In the end, what happened? You broke WP:POINT ("Don't disrupt to prove or make a point"), and pointlessly annoyed others who had genuine concerns.

User page formatting

Then moving on... you did the same thing with reformatting of your user page. Again, "I will revert unless you do what I want, the way I want it". On this one, you're on slightly more solid ground, since within reason your user page is up to you (not others) to manage, refactor, archive, etc, so long as you don't do so to obscure or muddy the water on debates. Reordering others posts is permitted if it doesn't misrepresent the dialog. In this case it probably didn't - you changed an indent to an outdent, is all. So it's allowed, but note - you still stroked others the wrong way by doing so. Some things are allowed, but won't get you brownie points. I do not agree however agree with Phil's comment that this "distorted" the short discussion, and do agree with yours that you have the right under WP:TPG to do so. But damn, Rambutan, you could do it more cordially :) Lucid however is right, and did well, labelling these as "good faith edits" . At that point, Phil blocked you, giving a list of reasons.

Your current block

Moving to the block. You have a record of violation of 3RR, and -- on your user page only -- of being prickly and demanding others ask nicely, reverting if they don't (even if what they ask is reasonable), reverting a banner in breach of WP:POINT that multiple editors had told you was causing problems, just because you hadn't been asked like you wanted (and regardless of problems caused to the readers of the Wiki page).

But I don't agree with Phil's characterization of you. It paints you blacker than you seem to be, from here. The talk page flow change was not nice or as good as it could have been, but was (to me) your right (nothing seemed "obscured" to me as a reader); the disruptive template removal you gamed WP:POINT over instead of just removing, but did remove when asked by GDonato finally and did not reinstate it (and is also in the past), and removal of off topic items is your right, if they truly are off-topic. (It's not clear which edits Phil is referring to here, as no DIFFs are provided for this item, so I can't judge this one.)

Blocks are not issued for cooling off or "taking time off". WP:BLOCK is very clear on this, and Nick's unblock denial (reightly or wrongly) tends to give the impression that's what he means. It's best to review it purely in terms of disruptive editing, whether a months block seems appropriate. A review of your block log tends to support your contention that you have tried to improve by avoiding 3RR slipups since the last block, and indeed from many blocks in June/July, there are none in August at all, until this one.

Blocker's action

It is worth noting that others in the community may feel COI concerns "on principle", when someone's main argument partner is also their blocker, without evidence of independent review. There is minor evidence that your blocker may himself have allowed himself to exaggerate your actions and failed to act dispassionately in his characterization.

That in part is why independent review can be so important, and something that matters to consider.

(Importantly, note that admins are allowed to block users they have disputed with over conduct matters, and all the above are conduct matters. So before you ask, I want to make very clear that Phil was in his rights within policy to block you if it were merited, even though he had swapped words with you beforehand.)

Proposed action and view

Rambutan - this is how I see it. I may be wrong, and if so I will accept any admin overrulling this, since I don't know your history in its entirety and you may have other major recent history I have not been aware of. So that's the first caveat.

You have lived here by making a lot of contributions, to many places - articles, discussions, vandalism and user name issues and so on. But you have adopted a style of aggression to others, slightly - if they ask a right thing a wrong way, if you want to stand on your rights, and so on, if you don't like their response and want to label it vandalism, and so on. That's really minor stuff, but it adds up. I'm going to ask, please consider whether this, like 3RR issues, is an approach that holds you back from actually being quite a good editor here. It's a collaborative project, but I get the feeling you're tackling it like a lone editor, not considering others input needs to be worked with and accepted too. At times your prickliness has led others to respond a bit too reactively, or mislabel you back -- what else is to be expected. Its unnecessary.

Proposed decision

I have reached after considerable thought "what should be done", a decision about your block. I think that for reasons above, a month's block is excessive (I'm having difficulty seeing grounds for a block at all, from here), and characterizing you as a 'disruptive editor' is not entirely the whole of it. You removed the banner when asked finally (and that was in the past), you didn't reformat your talk page (in this case) in a way that breached WP:TPG, the constant 3RR blocks are in the past mostly, possible concerns exist over the blocker's action, and so on. Although I think Phil has made an important point, and one that you need to listen to:

Misplaced Pages editing isn't just about your rights and how you want to be treated. Its about working with others, and you are singularly failing to do that right now. That alone is a source of disruption, as is refusing to do what's right unless your need for civility is met. If they are incivil, thats one thing. If you respond by using that to prove a point or unreasonable stubbornness back, that's a second thing - and WP:POINT is policy too.

So I'll remove the block - there really is/was little basis for a block anyhow. The banner issue had been resolved, the 3RR was not ongoing, and so on. A factor in this is that you have shown you can and do change past behavior when blocked for it. However note this: you have disrupted and annoyed others, by playing the game with WP:POINT. Don't. WP:POINT and disruptive editing, as you can see, are solid grounds for blocks.

Final words

Make no mistake, you have been disruptive and annoyed others, and caused stress in the last week. If you're thinking "they did it to me too"... I don't buy it as a justification.

Please -- go forth and avoid Phil, ask Phil to avoid you, and if others act wrongly, seek outside opinions in a calm, non-dramatic way, do not try to prove the point, or anything. Okay?

Case dismissed, user unblocked.

FT2 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote: This opinion was passed for rechecking to two other uninvolved administrators before posting, to ensure it is not just "one person's view". One of these has also volunteered to endorse the decision. FT2 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)