Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:15, 17 September 2014

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your commentsOwais khursheed (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2014‎ (UTC)

"Your promise not to continue is accepted"

Hi. How are you? Thanks for your continued interest in, and work for, Misplaced Pages. When another editor wrote, "Before I can dive into this, please first revert the edit I mentioned" you characterized my second response (above) as "antagonizing" and "provoking". I was not born with the gene that allows me to understand this but since I neither wish to antagonize nor provoke please help me understand which of the following should also be avoided:

1. "You stated before you can dive into this, I must revert the edit you mentioned" (verbatim restatement)
2. "You stated before you continue I must revert the edit"
3. "You stated you will not continue until I revert"
4. "Your statement is that you will not continue until I revert"
5. "Your statement is that you will not continue until I revert and this is okay"
6. "Your statement is that you will not continue and this is okay"
7. "Your statement not to continue is okay"
8. "Your promise not to continue is okay"
9. "Your promise not to continue is accepted" (described as "antagonizing" and "provoking")

Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he was promising not to continue something. He was asking you to revert yourself because you had arguably violated the 1RR that applies to all Israel-Palestine articles, so it's understandable that he was less than impressed with your response. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was DePiep's idea to declare / state / promise / inform the reader of a refusal to discuss the subject matter on the Talk page until I complied with the order to revert the edit, after I had already explained that I did not agree with the characterization of it as a 1RR violation. That was exactly what DePiep then did: refused to discuss the subject matter as if making some sort of political statement through the refusal to engage in a discussion on the Talk page. The statement / declaration / promise / threat / prediction that henceforth no discussion would be forthcoming was not my idea. It was DePiep's idea. I only restated what DePiep had already written and I simply agreed and accepted the decision to carry out the threat ("" "") I thought I was being agreeable by accepting the solution that was presented to me by DePiep. To the extent that there is any disagreement with DePiep writing that DePiep would not "dive into this" ("continue"?) before I complied with the order, this should be taken up with DePiep, not me. I only agreed with and accepted DePiep's suggestion.

As I understand, you are suggesting that #7 ("Your statement not to continue is okay") would have been a reasonable restatement of what he had written said but #8 ("Your promise not to continue is okay") becomes antagonizing and provoking? To me, these have very nearly the same meaning so I am trying to figure out which statements should be avoided. As I said, I was just not born with the gene to understand why this is the case so I will rely on your judgment that the use of the word "promise" instead of "statement" is the problem. Do I understand this correctly #8 is the issue here? If I had simply written "Your statement not to continue is okay" I would have been simply restating what DePiep wrote and this would not be provoking and antagonizing?

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. How are you? Thanks for your continued interest in, and work for, Misplaced Pages. I asked you what, exactly, was "antagonizing" and "provocative" about my answering "Your promise not to continue is accepted" in response to DePiep's statement, "Before I can dive into this, please first revert the edit I mentioned." It seems to me that you ought to have chastised DePiep for a continued refusal to discuss suggested changes on the Talk page.

I believe my behavior was proper. In response to an editorial disagreement, as soon as this was called to my attention I immediately stopped editing and started a discussion on the Talk page. My comments on the article Talk page were appropriate and were not personal. However, when I *agreed* and *accepted* what the other editor wrote ("Before I ...", "Your promise... is accepted") somehow this caused you to caution me about my behavior. I am suggesting, perhaps, that you might have a problem with DePiep's refusal to discuss the topic civilly and it is only when I echo DePiep's bad behavior, its offensiveness becomes clear. You have taken exception with what I wrote ("Your promise... is accepted") when I merely agreed with what DePiep suggested. If you have a problem with that, don't blame me for accepting it: maybe it would be better to direct your exception to the originator of the promise/statement.

I think it might help to understand why I am confused about this by considering the numbered statements I wrote above. The first is a verbatim restatement of what was already written -- you can't reasonably blame me for that. The others all have nearly the same meaning, to me, and I'm wondering why this is not the case for you. However, somehow #9 becomes offensive. Which of the numbered statements are offensive to you? SeattliteTungsten (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I am, again, asking why my response restating another editor's statement and agreeing with it warranted a caution from you. To illustrate why I thought it was reasonable for me to restate the other person's statement and accept it, I asked you which of the above statements you considered offensive. I am wondering whether you believe #1 is offensive and, if not, when morphing to #9 becomes offensive. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What the heck did the editor do?

What did the editor User:Doxelary do to be hardblocked indefinitely other than the vague 'not here' reason you left. You also disabled talk page and email access, specifically prohibited unless there is abuse in those actions per WP:HARDBLOCK Which there weren't. Additionally, which bit of WP:NOTHERE applied to this user? Do I have to make a WP:ANI request so that you'll be accountable for your administrator actions? Tutelary (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You make me laugh. The reason is patently obvious to anyone who's not pushing an agenda, and it does amuse me that you're not getting all righteous about the IP that I blocked. You're very good at regurgitating policy, but does it not occur to you that the community would not have put up with me through four and a half years and nigh 10,000 blocks (and c.40,000 admin actions) if I wasn't intimately familiar with policy and its practical application? And I am accountable for my admin actions—voluntarily to any member of the community in good standing, and involuntarily to the community as a whole via ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not plainly obvious why you hardblocked them--removing talk page and email access when there is no abuse on those fronts. Tutelary (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been appalled watching the treatment of Tutelary and Titanium Dragon. I hope it's not policy to gang up on doxxing/harassment victims. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not consider the hardblock to be terribly obvious or justified. Even with evident sockpuppets we do not resort to such measures automatically. Perhaps you can explain the reasoning to me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's quite common for 'new' accounts that are clearly attempting to evade scrutiny; it prevents the account from using the email system to continue such evasion, and prevents their talk page from becoming a forum (as they all too often do) for a whole host of things not related to writing the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have seen plenty of block-evading socks get blocked. Even socks associated with harassment of editors do not typically get hardblocked automatically. Do you have any significant examples showing this to be a common response?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to go trawling through the block log to find examples, no; that would be a waste of time that could be better spent writing the encyclopaedia (that is what we're here for, isn't it, or is that just a distraction from project-space drama?). What I can offer is anecdotal evidence, having made more blocks than most admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked over your own logs and while you do sometimes remove talk and e-mail access for block evaders, you are by no means consistent as sometimes it is just a standard block. Do you have reason to believe this is someone evading a block rather than using multiple accounts? You are even less consistent on those sorts of blocks. Not to mention I can point to plenty of cases where confirmed and obvious socks that regularly engage in harassment or outing of other editors are not immediately stripped of talk and e-mail access. Honestly, you probably shouldn't even be handling this since you explicitly supported a site ban against Tutelary and immediately raised Doxelary as a possible sock of Tutelary in that discussion after the block, hence there are WP:INVOLVED issues to consider. Hardblocking the account only makes it look like you are trying to keep the operator of the Doxelary account from contradicting your suggestion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is my 3rd-party, neutral observation: User:Doxelary wrote an entry on Jimbo's Talk page. HJ Mitchell then hardblocked User:Doxelary. Tutelary asked HJ Mitchell, Why? In response, HJ Mitchell did not answer the question and instead replied with the insult, "You make me laugh. The reason is patently obvious to anyone who's not pushing an agenga..." Allegedly, I am smarter than the average bear (so some people say), I do not believe I am pushing an agenda, and I am a neutral observer who happened to stumble across this and my response is, "HJ Mitchell, What gives?!? It is not at all obvious to me why you blocked the user. Why don't you simply answer a reasonable question instead of ridiculing the questioner? If the reason is so obvious, just tell us what the reason is." Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave my rationale for the block in the block log, and my rationale for removing talk page and email access above, and I have no time for the original questioner as they're only interested in the block that doesn't suit their agenda, and because they are an obvious troll whom I'd rather not feed (see WP:ANI#Tutelary for the details of that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MeropeRiddle

He has agreed to drop the stick; since it's 4:40 in the morning in England, I have assumed good faith and unblocked him, and am notifying you of the same. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's excellent news, thanks Mike. Merope, welcome back. Sorry about all that; you'vehad a bumpy few weeks on Misplaced Pages, but I hope the rest of your time here goes better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Right on. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

• Op-ed: Media Viewer software is not ready

• Traffic report: Refuge in celebrity

• Featured content: The louse and the fish's tongue

• WikiProject report: Checking that everything's all right

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

AE ping

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines. This appeal is running out of gas unless those who favor lifting will agree on a specific modification. Notifying you as one of the possible lifters. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modern Locomotives Illustrated, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does that cat look so pissed off?

But that is not why I am posting here, are you entirely sure I get to pick the article, and you police it? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to know what somebody to it! Yes, you get to pick the article, but pick wisely—I'd advise against biting off more than you can chew or picking a seriously hot-button topic. Once you've chosen, I'll note it on the log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Taliban, , if I can do that, then the wiki is my mollusc Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, what happened to the bit about biting off more than you can chew or picking a seriously hot-button topic? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Taliban are old news now, positively kitten-like in their stature. Although, perhaps a very pissed-off kitten... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)