This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 17 August 2010 (re Lar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:04, 17 August 2010 by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) (re Lar)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
POUR UNE WIKIPÉDIA DURABLE
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there. Please do not put a talkback template here.
It just makes for easier reading. Thanks. | ||||
| ||||
|
Article tags sanction
As you are an uninvolved admin who commented in the uninvolved admin section of the Article tag sanction, I alert you to this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Mediation in Censorship
Dear sir,
A user User:Kkm010 is continously censoring my well cited word on two of the articles namely:
- Suvendu Adhikari
and
- All India Trinamool Congress .
I've inserted a controversy section in these two articles, as this political party has open links with banned maoist terrorists. My wrtiting was supported by news reports from some of the very reputed dailies of India such as:
He is saying my edits are degrading the quality of that article. But I am writing a section only after doing research over it and relevant citations are their. Please help me in this.
Thanks.
-Basuupendra (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 August 2010
- WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Please clarify
You wrote Per the outcome of a recent enforcement request against you, I hereby notify you that you are prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months this is clearly beyond your powers. As a minor token to demonstrate this, I've edited your comments on my talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Please be more specific
--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- More specific with what? My block of WMC? WMC's sanction? My statement on WT:GS/CC/RE? Please be more specific about your request for specificity. The Wordsmith 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for being somewhat WP:POINTy. Yes, please specify how you feel WMC has violated his sanction, and, at least in the log, give enough context so that the mythical "uninvolved editor" can understand what has happened. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The sanction was that he is not allowed to edit comments left by other people. He deliberately edited my comment informing him of this restriction (rather POINTy himself), and then posted on my talk page taunting me about it, and claiming the restriction was invalid. The restriction most certainly was valid, and he intentionally violated it in his attempt to prove a point. There was no valid BLP or other exemption, and no reason he couldn't have inserted his comment underneath mine rather than in the middle of it. He willfully violated the restriction when there was no valid reason to, so he was blocked for it. If this is enough of an explanation for you, I can make a note of it in the log. The Wordsmith 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whilst WMC was clearly acting with an immature attempt to provoke, and I support the block, I'd have taken it to somewhere else to be honest and asked another admin to take action. Just my 2p. Pedro : Chat 20:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Climate Change sanctions are clear that taking purely administrative action against a user does not make you involved. WMC and others have tried that strategy before, in an effort to disqualify anyone willing to take action. It doesn't work. The Wordsmith 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know, but this was not, per se climate change related as the edit was to a post on his talk page, followed up by snark on yours. He POINTly had a go - at you. It's no big issue - I support the block - but frankly with WMC I'd have made it airtight as he'll lawyer around until one of his mates turns up to unblock for "time served" or some other such wikibollox. Pedro : Chat 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think what Pedro is referring to is more along the lines of "don't block for incivility directed at yourself". In any case, I'm not sure it really matters. The block was probably unnecessary, a pair of rollbacks would have sufficed, but that's your call. NW (Talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- How so? Please be more specific on how "a pair of rollbacks would have sufficed". Do you think sanctions should be blithely ignored by WMC and we just follow along behind cleaning up the messes made? That doesn't seem like a long term good strategy. Further, the block wasn't for incivility, it was for sanction violation followed up by provocative behavior in gloating about it. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rollbacking the childish behavior here and at his talk page is a much simpler way to say "we aren't interested in your games" than acknowledging and furthering them their existence by blocking, IMO. NW (Talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- How many times would you advise cleaning up the mess before you'd give up? What message does it send? How many messengers need to be shot before the message is delivered? Please carefully read what ATren says, just below. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- One rollback, in this particular case. If WMC got the message then, then all is well. If he didn't, then that reflects so much more the worse on him. And yes, I am aware of the history here. NW (Talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- How many times would you advise cleaning up the mess before you'd give up? What message does it send? How many messengers need to be shot before the message is delivered? Please carefully read what ATren says, just below. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rollbacking the childish behavior here and at his talk page is a much simpler way to say "we aren't interested in your games" than acknowledging and furthering them their existence by blocking, IMO. NW (Talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- How so? Please be more specific on how "a pair of rollbacks would have sufficed". Do you think sanctions should be blithely ignored by WMC and we just follow along behind cleaning up the messes made? That doesn't seem like a long term good strategy. Further, the block wasn't for incivility, it was for sanction violation followed up by provocative behavior in gloating about it. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know, but this was not, per se climate change related as the edit was to a post on his talk page, followed up by snark on yours. He POINTly had a go - at you. It's no big issue - I support the block - but frankly with WMC I'd have made it airtight as he'll lawyer around until one of his mates turns up to unblock for "time served" or some other such wikibollox. Pedro : Chat 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Climate Change sanctions are clear that taking purely administrative action against a user does not make you involved. WMC and others have tried that strategy before, in an effort to disqualify anyone willing to take action. It doesn't work. The Wordsmith 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whilst WMC was clearly acting with an immature attempt to provoke, and I support the block, I'd have taken it to somewhere else to be honest and asked another admin to take action. Just my 2p. Pedro : Chat 20:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The sanction was that he is not allowed to edit comments left by other people. He deliberately edited my comment informing him of this restriction (rather POINTy himself), and then posted on my talk page taunting me about it, and claiming the restriction was invalid. The restriction most certainly was valid, and he intentionally violated it in his attempt to prove a point. There was no valid BLP or other exemption, and no reason he couldn't have inserted his comment underneath mine rather than in the middle of it. He willfully violated the restriction when there was no valid reason to, so he was blocked for it. If this is enough of an explanation for you, I can make a note of it in the log. The Wordsmith 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for being somewhat WP:POINTy. Yes, please specify how you feel WMC has violated his sanction, and, at least in the log, give enough context so that the mythical "uninvolved editor" can understand what has happened. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
General comment: this editor has already earned two lengthy sanctions for this very same behavior. Rollback would have simply started a war, as it's clear that WMC was openly challenging the consensus -- a well-discussed consensus at that. And TWS is clearly uninvolved here. The block was entirely uncontroversial -- and necessary, because previous sanctions have obviously not worked. ATren (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, with a handful of editors everything is controversial. That said, i'm pleasantly surprised by how little drama this has generated so far. The Wordsmith 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)