Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doc9871 (talk | contribs) at 13:14, 19 May 2016 (→May 2016: re. You should be desysopped for uneven application of the rules.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

User talk:Doc9871/Archive 1 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 2 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 3 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 4 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 5 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Discussion about Leona Helmsley

178.232.18.97 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You blocked me for an entire week for that?! My first ever block here! I'll wait this one out as a "martyr". Unfuckingbelievable. Doc talk 21:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Doc, I'm sorry you were blocked. Did you see this edit notice warning when your reverted?- MrX 21:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A week for that second revert? I've been here for over 8 years and I've never been blocked except for once as a mistake. This is total bullshit. Doc talk 21:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Given your completely combative attitude and unapologetic responses, a week was definitely warranted. I don't think you even slightly grasp how wrong your actions were on such a highly visible page, on such a contentious topic, and with active Arbitration Committee remedies in effect. We don't just place page restrictions for fun, we place them to prevent exactly the type of disruption you were replicating on that page. I would have considered lowering it to 24 hours if you showed signs of changing your behavior, but that's simply not going to happen now. Good day, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You count two "reverts" as if the first one was not actually an attempt at removal of poorly-sourced and contentious BLP material. I made an edit - does this actually count as "Revert 1"? It can't count as a revert under 1RR or else no one would be allowed to remove anything at all. My "change" was "reverted" by another editor, and I then violated 1RR . I made 1 revert, not 2, and was punished quite unfairly when considering my block history and tenure here. Not only that, hours passed and many other edits were made before I signed off. There was no threat of "combative behavior"... yet I was blocked for an entire week, as if it was warranted as a preventative measure. You made a terrible block that is both excessive in length and punitive in nature. I don't care what you think as you are clearly not an admin I have respect for. And I've seen quite a few of them in my time here. Doc talk 22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, you've been here 8 years and don't know what a revert is. Allow me quote the policy for you: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." As your first edit was the removal/reversion of previously added content, it is considered by policy to be a revert. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

An important exemption to 3RR (or 1RR) is: "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." I said that the material was biased, as were the sources. I was clearly acting in good faith. Doc talk 22:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." That process happened, and everything was worked out on the talk page. See . The other editor acknowledged and understood my BLP concern. There were no more reverts and the content was restored. And... then this block happened. Why? Apparently BLP does not apply to that article since anything already there is incapable of being reverted, even if it's possibly biased and/or poorly sourced. This egregious "type of disruption you were replicating on that page" that you speak of. That would be removing... anything at all? Even once? What if it's a BLP violation? Doc talk 23:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The page restrictions are very clear, and you violated them. Did you just decide to not read them, or did you think you could just wikilawyer your way out of the inevitable block? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone has a BLP concern at that article and removes what they feel is contentious/biased/poorly sourced content, it is a violation of 1RR right off the bat to do that because it is "the removal/reversion of previously added content". Correct? Doc talk 02:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll ask you again: did you or did you not read the Arbitration Committee page restriction in the editnotice? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? With this edit: where did this editor "obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits." Hey... guess what? They've never even edited the talk page at all. Ever. Go figure! But that info can stay, right? Unchallenged, at that? Hogwash. Doc talk 03:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So I'll take that as a yes. Which means you knew you were deliberatly violating those page restrictions when you made those edits. That's extremely out of line and such behavior will not be tolerated here. You can continue to try to divert the discussion here away from yourself, but with this now out in the open I don't think any administrator would even consider unblocking you. And as there clearly isn't a chance of you comprehending what you did wrong anytime soon, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Good day, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You're telling me that that editor, who never bothered to achieve any sort of consensus before making that contentious edit, gets to have whatever they want in the article stay there? A BLP, no less, under severe sanctions?! And when anyone dares to challenge it, it's a revert to be sanctioned?! "Extremely out of line" behavior? How the heck can you not see the blatant hypocrisy of that position? You're just wrong. Straight up wrong. Doc talk 05:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

And your block log. You were blocked for: "Edit warring: and misuse of admin tools: restoring contested edit to policy page Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion despite full protection due to edit-warring about that content." You should have been blocked a lot longer than 24 hours for misusing your admin tools. Maybe at least a week, even. And I should respect you? Doc talk 05:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently another editor was also concerned that you were handing out week-long blocks without any proper warnings. Hmm. You also hand out blocks "for failure to gain the required consensus before making those edits"... but apparently only when you feel like it. It's really amazing that you'll admit to blocking without even being able to "find" a 1RR violation: and then ask other editors to provide any diffs that would be "helpful". Wow. Did the editor I reverted get blocked for failure to gain the required consensus before making those edits? Nope? Guess the material stays then. Doc talk 06:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Doc, you do realize that your comments are accomplishing nothing except perhaps to the extent that venting makes you feel better. It never does any good to snipe at the blocking administrator. Other administrators reviewing the situation want the editor to focus on their own conduct. You can think whatever indignant, outraged thoughts you like, but articulating them here rarely has any effect on the sanction, and often the opposite.

In the context of edit-warring, claims of BLP exemption are generally dismissed by administrators. The supposed BLP violation has to be egregious, just as a claim of vandalism has to be obvious. Your claim that the Washington Post and New Yorker pieces aren't reliable because of the nature of the articles is at best attenuated. Interestingly enough, although you mentioned the unreliability in the RfC, you didn't actually say it was a BLP violation to include the material. I also noticed that BLP issues weren't the basis for any oppose to inclusion of the material. They were generally based on noteworthiness.

As for the 1RR breach itself, in my view it is a violation. Your apparent belief that the first revert doesn't count is hard to support in this context. You removed material that had recently been added and was the subject of dispute. That's clearly a revert, and, yes, that would mean that you wouldn't be allowed to do another revert in the same 24-hour period.

I don't know if these comments are going to help or make you more angry. If they do the latter, I'll bow out as that wasn't my objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, your comments are not going to make me any more angry. You're an admin I respect, and for good reason. I'm seriously considering just deleting my account. I've had a good run. Admins like Coffee are utterly demoralizing. I think I might just be done here. Doc talk 13:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)