Jump to content

User:Prodego/archive/72

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Albanian articles

Hello,

I am sorry, I posted in the wrong section. Never mind my post before this, it was a mistake.

--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah well, I was in a bad mood. By the way, would you please check out this articles here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyria

I tried to post a valid, referenced material about Illyria and Illyrians. But that user, again is making me go nuts by removing material without any actual reason. I think you understand why I got nervous before. Here, take a look at what I wrote, and please, if you see that any trimming is needed or you can find a better location...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illyrians&action=edit&undoafter=290146216&undo=290156658 --Jurgenalbanian (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms

Please reopen this AFD discussion as it has only been open for a little over a day and the process specifies that seven days is the period for this. WP:SNOW is not applicable in this case as there were already numerous Keep and Merge opinions and improvement of the article had only just started. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That article was clearly not going to be kept, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT clearly demonstrate that. You can take it to WP:DRV if you would like. There is no reason to waste everyone's time with such a silly AfD. Prodego talk 15:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
For your boldness in closing said AfD Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
While I do not in any way object to the deletion of the article, please note that your suggestion to merge relevant material is inconsistent. We do not delete articles when we merge from them, this because by GFDL we should preserve the edit history. So your suggestion would amount to a copyvio. See WP:Delete and merge. Taemyr (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Only if you interpret "merge" in the "copy the content exactly" sense. You can take an idea (the topic of Michelle Obama's arms) and incorporate it into the main article without needing any text from the separate article. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

77.96.67.86 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for this. Regards. Adambro (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

TE

I've re-deleted User_talk:Tennis_expert. He confirms that he is off, and I've told him he needs to stop making comments elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, just so long as he isn't editing. Prodego talk 15:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Zhang Yueran

Are you sure about the speedy deletion of this article? As a non-administrator I can't check, but I have some recollection of adding sources that indicate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There were some refs, but the claim to notability was "She won the 2001 New Concept Composition Competition organised by Mengya magazine." both of which were redlinks, so meh. If you want it restored to check it out in more depth, let me know. Prodego talk 00:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that those are red links is a reflection on our weak coverage of Chinese topics, not on the notability of the subject. She passes notability guidelines by virtue of coverage in reliable sources. Yes, I would like the article restored, and am disappointed that an admin would speedily delete a sourced article rather than take it to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to assist in going through the new page backlog and are able to judge all of the pages there without making any misjudgments, I would love your assistance. Prodego talk 01:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

John Wall (basketball)

Why did you delete the article? Ice (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ATHLETE. Prodego talk 02:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
For your information: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20#John_Wall_.28basketball.29. decltype (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OP

Greetings, I'm just trying to get a current feel for who is still active in the project and if anybody would object to cleaning out inactive users of the verified user list. Thank you for your time. Q T C 03:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano block

I tried to leave a message on your talk page earlier, but there was a persistent server problem. That was a terrible block. He was clearly angry about this, and rightly so (I could give many reasons). Please reconsider the three weeks. Peter Damian (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Peter here. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno was certainly not behaving as well as he could have, but Giano's leaving a comment which he clearly knew was a personal attack is just not acceptable at all. ("Yes, this is probably a personal attack, and I shall be banned") The only possible reason to make such a comment is to blatantly defy one of the cornerstones of the project, collaboration. Working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia sometimes does mean working with annoying people, but that is no excuse to be indecent to others. Due to Giano's long history of civility issues, and that Giano clearly intended to be blocked, I made the block longer than might otherwise be done. However, given those two factors, I still feel that 3 weeks is far less of a duration than the max that could be justified. Prodego talk 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Prodego, I think I understand what your point is here, but it seems that you're making the block essentially on principle rather than pursuing a practical or pragmatic end. That is, what are the actual effects of the block? Does anyone actually "learn a lesson" here? Is there overwhelming disruption to the project? Why 3 weeks, if not to punish, or even drive off? I can only assume that you did what many people do, use an informal calculus and hope for the best, but I think it was poorly applied this time. I think your first instinct, to talk to both parties and try to talk them down from their posturing, was the right one, and that you applied your hammer far too early, and unevenly.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've already comented briefly on Xeno's talk, but you asked me to reply here; I pretty much echo what Tznkai says above. Launching a torrent of abuse out of the blue would be one thing, but replying to one rude comment with another might not be admirable, but it's understandable. Xeno's already made it clear that he wasn't particularly bothered by Giano's comment; three weeks seems an arbitrary and unfairly long figure (what will have changed in three weeks?). Answer honestly, if I, or Xeno, or anyone without Giano's baggage had said that, would you have enacted the same three-week block? (I posted "I don't know who you are but you're starting to seriously annoy me" on my talk just a couple of days ago, and none of the large group of friends and enemies who watch my talkpage raised an eyebrow.) –  iridescent  21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the preventative not punitive argument. This is an important point, so I'll try to respond as fully as possible. Disruption, whether in the form of incivility, personal attacks, revert wars, stalking, are all of the type where a block is not going to directly solve a problem. Sure you can block someone for edit warring, but what is stopping them from coming back as soon as the block expires? Civility works the same way. While a block does not directly prevent the issue from recurring (except of course for the length of the block) the hope is that it would at least deter the behavior, and show that we, as a community, are serious about having an environment that fosters cooperative collaboration. In this case, Giano was certainly not the only party at fault, and discussion was certainly the best way to resolve the issue. As I was writing a rather lengthy 'calm down guys' style message, however, Giano made a personal attack that indicated he clearly knew that it was unacceptable, and that he was going to do it anyway. The point of warnings is to inform people of the policies. If Giano is so clearly stating 'I know this is wrong and I will be blocked, but I am going to do it anyway', as I interpreted his comment, then that is clearly disruptive, and warrants a stronger response then an angry letter. Due to the long history Giano has with civility issues, and the fact that he clearly intended to be blocked, I opted for a longer block than I would have if he had not included that 'I will be banned' comment, but given that he did make that comment, I think 3 weeks is still far less than could be justified. Thanks very much for commenting here Iridescent, I appreciate it. Prodego talk 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Psst, I think you mean punitive not putative. the wub "?!" 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, fixed. :) Prodego talk 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you think this will actually deter Giano at all? If someone says "I'm going to end up blocked for this" in this context, this isn't "I know what I'm doing is wrong" its "I know someone who has the power to block me will do so, and he's wrong." I'm not arguing from any particular principle here, but I'm saying, it is empirically shown that by blocking Giano for 3 weeks you lost any progress, as slight as it was, in calming the discussion down and solving the core issue. While the long block is on face justifiable by process and general standards, it is in substance a mistake because it is ineffective (in this case) at producing the civil conduct you desire.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If Giano says "Yes, this is probably a personal attack, and I shall be banned", I can't see how he would come to the conclusion "I know someone who has the power to block me will do so, and he's wrong." It is fairly obvious that his comment was not appropriate. Prodego talk 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying the most reasonable interpretation of events and motivations is that Giano thinks he was in the right, and that someone in the wrong would punish him for saying what he thought was right. An unhelpful attitude perhaps, but it also demonstrates that blocking is the wrong tool for the problem.--Tznkai (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If Giano believes that calling another editor a "pathetic little runt" is in the right, then perhaps this project is not right for him. Prodego talk 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've long suspected that myself, but who are we to make that determination? My belief is that as administrators our biases should be to reduce drama, create peace, encourage productive editing, and protect problematic editors from themselves and their taunters. That is, it is our job to solve problems, so the encyclopedia can get written. I think blocking Giano, especially for 3 weeks, did not advance any of those goals in an efficient way.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that editors who appear to purposefully provoke other editors should be blocked for at least half as long as the editor that they provoked into a personal attack. Therefore, I'm asking you to block Xeno for 10 days. Yes, this will be a punitive block, but so was Giano's. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion, however, given that Xeno's behavior was a bit more subtle than Giano's (to put it mildly) I think that it would be better to discuss the issue of what to do about Xeno on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Xeno, where many editors and admins can get involved. Since I made the block on Giano, I would also prefer another admin takes any action that is needed regarding Xeno. Please do bring it up on ANI though, it is an important matter which deserves discussion. Prodego talk 00:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this action may well be a net positive to the project. The duration was too long, but users who decide that they want to spew tirades against anyone with whom they disagree aren't always suited to a collaborative project. I'll admit to being biased as Giano previously demanded that I be desysopped for leaving civility and "don't remove AFD notice" warnings for a user, but I won't miss him. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock

Tznkai has quite deftly explained to me how my actions were inappropriate; though I was simply trying to help as a humble wikignome, it obviously had the opposite effect. Clicking through to the article and editing was unwise and, as you pointed out to me, I handled the situation poorly. Please unblock Giano, or signal that you do not mind another administrator unblocking. –xeno talk 02:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding of how your actions were inflammatory, but that doesn't change that Giano's actions, nor is it an excuse for them. Therefore, and based on the consensus of the ANI thread, I would not be willing to unblock Giano right now. Since Giano seems to have taken matters in to his own hands, the block is somewhat irrelevant at this point anyway. Should the ANI thread reopen, please, discuss it there where a larger group of admins can confer. Prodego talk 04:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I owe you an apology for reversing your block. In the edit summary I did try to make it clear it was a 'just' block. I did not discuss this with you as a feared it would just ignite yet more discussion and drama. I hope this will now end and we can get back to being prodcutive. David D. (Talk) 05:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like this discussion should come before the unblock, no? RxS (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I put this on one of the WP:Something or other pages. So please delete it if you have seen it elsewhere.

The Civility Policy has a purpose - The purpose of civility is to prevent behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. If you consider and an action to be incivil, but the action is not causing stress or confict then there is no reason to block. Xeno has stated that he was not particularly bothered by Giano's words. There was no unproductive stress or conflict except perhaps to you Prodego as someone reading Xeno's talk page. The other participants on the talk page were having a heated discussion that appears to have stressed or lessened your productivity. If you were the one who was upset or stressed - then perhaps as an involved party - you should have let someone else block. Uncle uncle uncle 05:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have, and I have responded to a similar message above, which you may be interested in the reply to. Prodego talk 05:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Prior to your block - two editors were having a heated discussion. After your block - one editor scrambled his password and the other editor blocked himself. Do you not understand that the policy has a purpose? It's not just a rule to be enforced - the purpose is to prevent unproductive stress and conflict. You actually took a heated (but non-stressful) discussion and replaced it with something that was both stressful and unproductive. And you yourself were involved in the discussion (although trying to perhaps lower the heat) - do you not understand that your block took a warm situation and created more stress and unproductivity than was already there? Uncle uncle uncle 06:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck!

You made a good block of a good length. I hope you get away with it - there is a serious problem around here of people being far too lax on experienced editors that continually cause trouble and should know better. I got desysopped on trumped up charges when I tried a long block in that situation, I hope you don't follow me. Best of luck to you! --Tango (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Wall (basketball)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Wall (basketball). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello. I'd like to inform you that I have filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Moni3 in which you are referred to by name, though not as an involved party. Best regards,  Sandstein  14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I've added your name to a request for arbitration. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ACC

I noticed you declined my request for acc rights. Before I go any further, I want to point out that I am neither attacking, nor am I whining.
As far as I can see ACC doesn't have any rules as far as edit count, or tenure on wikipedia, just that trust is needed. I don't want to officially request an appeal, because I don't want to annoy you and the other admins who work on that, but I think I have earned, at least a small amount of community trust. I have adopted five users, and am mentoring one problem user in the hopes of helping him into becoming a better contributor. I have also been given the rollback permission by bibliomaniac and have used it (in conjunction with uggle) responsibly, with minimal mistakes. I have written articles, participated in dispute resolution, joined numerous wikiprojects, worked with admins to catch socks and particularly elusive vandals. On several occasions I have noticed an attack using huggle, and edited out only the attack portion in order to promote civility. While I understand your concerns, I do not understand what difference a few months will make.Drew Smith What I've done 02:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You've still been around a little more than a month. A few more months to make mistakes, familiarize yourself with policies, etc won't hurt. Prodego talk 03:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Like I said, I understand your concerns, so I won't press the issue further.Drew Smith What I've done 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ACC access

I was suspended on ACC today, after incorrect handling of request #30514. I read through the guide and I realize what I should have done. Now I would like to be unsuspended, if this is possible, so I may continue using the tool. Thank you. JagunTalkContribs 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but just to be clear, what was it that should have been done, and why? Prodego talk 04:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I should have passed the request on to users with accountcreator permission, because the account that was similar to the requested account was inactive (no edits, created over a year ago). JagunTalkContribs 04:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and done. Prodego talk 04:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: ACC Tool

Hi there,

Just wondering if you had a bit of a mixup on my userpage over an account creation? At no point did I request a new account. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I had two userpages open at the same time (among other things) and added it to the wrong page. I did realize that and revert it though. Prodego talk 00:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Using Wikia For Fiction Writing

Do you want to use Wikia's Fiction Wiki with me? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You and I would collaborate on stories and talk to each other about them if you want to. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious question

Prodego, I earlier today while logged into this account posted a question on this talk page. After posting the comment the page loaded and I was able to view the comment on the page. The comment is no longer here and does not exist in my contribution history nor this page history. I am concerned as to how this occured; I have read it is possible for some administrators to remove things from page histories and I wonder if this is the case in this instance. Some guy (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible someone could do that. If they did do that it is not at a level where I can see it either. More likely the edit failed to save due to a momentary server glitch, or similar. Feel free to ask again, or you can email me: Prodego@gmail.com. Prodego talk 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It does make sense it could have been a server glitch. I've had somewhat similar problems before but not that one specifically. I'm not sure why someone would have deleted the comment anyway. Also from your page history it appears there was some vandalism here earlier and a temporary page protection so maybe there was a server glitch during that time.
Anyway, as you probably remember I am concerned about one administrator's possibly inappropriate usage of administrator tools. I was intending to use Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges to file a complaint but the directions there seem to be different than the ones at Template:RfC3 and now I am confused about what to do. I have been burrowing through the policy pages trying to understand the best procedure for addressing complaints about admin misconduct but I am unsure of what to do. Arbitration committee is considered a last resort. Dispute resolution guidelines seem almost exclusively tailored to article content and editing disputes and not relevant to concerns about administrator conduct.
I am somewhat lost and don't know what steps to take now, so I am hoping you can point me in the right direction. For now I have been posting questions on policy discussion pages to get a better idea of the validity of my complaints, and am awaiting responses. Some guy (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I think there was likely just a misunderstanding between you and Ryan Delaney, both about some of these complicated policies, and about what exactly each other's intentions were. Before filing any sort of RfC or anything like that, I would try talking to him, and making clear that you had no ill intent. In all likelihood, neither did he, and it is all a misunderstanding. Prodego talk 06:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
His initial actions were outright excessive; this was before there was even a chance for a misunderstanding. My feeling is that if administrators start throwing around weeklong blocks and indefinite page protections at the slightest provocation, this is against the core values of Wikipedia. Not only can these actions significantly inhibit other user's abilities to contribute to the Encyclopedia, they will alienate users and give admins a sense of entitlement and power which are in direct violation wtih policy. Some guy (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: I am not sure if this is directly relevant, but Ryan apparently renamed his account today, to User:Causa sui. This caused me a great deal of confusion at first as to why the signatures on some of his comments had changed, so I am just mentioning it here to prevent confusion. Some guy (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I can imagine him seeing the situation in such a way that the semi-protection and the block were appropriate, but I can also see how they would be inappropriate from how you were seeing the situation. I really think that your best bet is to just talk to him about how you saw the situation, and he will hopefully reassure you that he did not intend his actions to be interpreted the way you see them. His renaming is not related, I believe that had been planned for a while now. Prodego talk 19:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for coming to you for assistance again but I am confused and frustated and once again being given the run around. I posted a user RfC regarding Ryan; I then posted a request for comment on the RfC at WP:ANI, which was something Ryan himself suggested on the IP talk page. Administrators at the ANI board dismissed my request for comment as "forum shopping", which is a term I'm not even familiar with, and said it was part of a series; the best I can get out of that is they think I am going everywhere asking for attention, which is completely false; I have posted the RfC nowhere else. Admins have also complained about my asking questions on policy discussion pages as "fishing", but I was attempting to follow dispute resolution steps which include asking questions on policy discussion pages. I did not provide links to the RfC at these discussion pages.
I am extremely frustrated and upset; I feel as if other administrators are again trying to sweep my complaints away and take advantage of my lack of complete understanding of the complex layers of policy. I have been again accused of Wikilawyering, a term which seems to me to be in direct contradiction with the statement on Jimbo Wales' user page about using strict scrutiny.
I am not asking for your opinion on the RfC as I feel that would be inappropriate considering my discussion with you. I am extremely upset because the entire system seems to prevent users from successfully file complaints about administrator conduct. Am I just wrong about everything? Some guy (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult for someone uninvolved and unused to the processes of Wikipedia to complain about someone via all the formal processes. While I do see that, from your point of view, Ryan's conduct was not appropriate, I can also see how he justified his actions. Because he can justify them, we would assume he was acting in good faith, and so any complaint about him isn't likely to be all that successful. I do believe that if you were to discuss this with him, he would, I hope, be able to alleviate at least some of the concerns you have. Prodego talk 02:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying very hard to follow policy but this has drawn me heavy criticism; I feel Ryan is openly hostile towards me and i dont think direct discussion is an appropriate avenue; i am not interested in an apology as this does not prevent him from future misconduct. I feel it is appropraite to attempt arbcom because it feels to me like administrators are generally ganging up on me, criticizing my attempts to follow policy, and negrelcting policy themselves. since arbcom is a serious panel i would readily accept their judgment and any consequences against myself as final; this has been a nightmare that has drained days of time and i would not consider this worth it for 'revenge' or over a minor dispute. Some guy (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC
In my opinion, and I really do hope you follow this suggestion, you should get back to editing, and forget about the issues with Ryan. If you do have a problem with anything he did, the first step in resolving any dispute is always to talk to the person you have issue with. Either talk to Ryan first, or move on, no one will accept any sort of RfC RfAr or anything else when you have not even tried to resolve the issue through discussion. Prodego talk 03:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/72&oldid=1143247169"