User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Seraphim System. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (Iraqi art) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Iraqi art, Seraphim System!
Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
January 2018
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= Your reason here. ~~~~}}. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
U.S. v Zarrab
Thank you for creating U.S. v Zarrab article but it is officially named "U.S. v Mehmet Hakan Atilla" as I wrote in the talk page of the article it should be moved. Thanks. --Abbatai 10:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Coffee
Coffee Can you lift this block? I don't edit in the Syria topic area and I didn't know there were any sanctions. No editors have said anything to me about it, and neither did you before blocking which I think is not a preventative block for something that happened last night. I can self-revert something if you want me to, but all you had to do was tell me the article was under an editing restriction. That is usually the best thing to try first in these situations. Now that I know about it I won't go over 1RR again. Additionally, as you know based on your participation at ARCA the awareness requirements were changed after my last block because I had not received a notice of sanctions. I have not received any notice of discretionary sanctions here either. I think it is a bad sign if the sanctions (general and discretionary) is so complicated that an established editor acting in good faith can't understand it and keeps getting repeating blocks unintentionally, you will lose an editor. This can mostly be avoided by admins not blocking unless it is actually necessary. (Blocks should not be "punishment" but preventative.) Seraphim System (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Coffee additionally Yereventsi violated the consensus clause here [1], EtienneDolet violated it here [2], EkoGraf violated 1RR here [3] [4] Despite all the other violations on the page I only see one other editor you have blocked who is also Turkish. That is completely unacceptable. Seraphim System (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim System (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I didn't know about any discretionary sanctions in this area and I never received the notice for the topic area, which I thought was required since the last time this happened. ARCA changed the awareness requirements after my last block, but it does not seem to have helped because I have now received another block for violating an editing restriction I was not aware of. If anyone had discussed it with me prior to blocking, I would have apologized, self-reverted and would not have gone over 1RR again. I have also since gone on to working on another article which has been interrupted by the block. I haven't edited the Afrin article in over 24 hours (I think.) This is not a preventative block.Seraphim System (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per the extensive discussion below. The key points are: 1) you were adequately warned; 2) you persisted in reverting after being adequately warned; 3) the length of this block is reasonable per WP:RECIDIVISM. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:38, 25 January 2018 (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.
- I'm going to leave this request for another admin to review, but I do have a couple points to raise:
- That article had a rather large editnotice above the editing box at the time of your edit warring. history of the editnotice - implemented 01:26, January 23, 2018 , your edit 05:03, January 23, 2018.
- Another editor also brought this to your attention here, on your talkpage at 14:14, January 23, 2018 - a full day before your block. SQLQuery me! 00:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was in regards to the DS. Nevermind. SQLQuery me! 01:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Unstriking - only an editnotice is required. SQLQuery me! 01:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I did not even see that or I would have responsed at the edit warring noticeboard, I absolutely did not go over 3RR and I was careful about it, but it seems it does not matter how careful I am because it is not enough. I don't know if it is worth continuing to edit at this point. I see only two editors have been blocked and both are Turkish, but no one is enforcing sanctions against Etienne or Yerevantsi for consensus clause violations.Seraphim System (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing this block with something else. This block has nothing to do with Arbitration Committee sanctions this block is to enforce community approved general sanctions. Those sanctions have never required that you be informed by anything more than an editnotice, regardless of the fact that you had been warned prior to this block on this talk page over 24 hours before you decided to continue to disobey community policies. I'm sorry, but I see no need to unblock you.... especially when most of what you talk about here has to do with other users, instead of taking personal responsibility for your actions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Here's the policy you need to pay attention to, WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR:
All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert. ... Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is one set of edits with no intervening edits on that ends at 10:26 on January 23, Etienne restores the content in violation of the consensus clause here [5], I then improve it here based on the AP report [6] - how do I end up sanctioned for violating a 1RR restriction I didn't know about because of a complaint filed by an editor who did know about the editing restrictions and violated the consensus clause? This is on Jan 23 23:32. And I haven't made any edits to the page since then. You have just lost another editor, which many people have already warned would happen if Coffee continued this style of admin-ing.Seraphim System (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is no such "consensus clause". You are continuing to conflate the Syrian topic area with the Arab-Israeli and AP topic areas. No one is asking you to leave, but no one is going to reduce the block on your account just because you threaten to do so. Our policies don't work that way. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sad to see SS getting blocked again. I haven't checked in any detail, but I had thought that after a relatively peaceful editing interval without getting blocked, she would find her way and stay out of trouble. I think she shouldn't jump into such controversial topics so fast, and, when she does, she should exercise great caution and be very careful with anything that looks like a revert. I would support an early unblock, if she promises to stay out of these troubled areas for some time. Dr. K. 01:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Coffee Really? Because this is the edit notice I've seen Template:Editnotices/Page/Syrian_Civil_War but now you are telling me there are multiple versions of the edit notice? I'm not going to put my time and effort into a project that can't come up with a coherent sanctions system, or even more importantly a coherent way of enforcing it without harassing editors for making non-disruptive improvements. The consequence is you will lose those editors, and you have. I spent hours of my time cleaning up newly created articles when that warning was posted to my talk page, talking with new editors about how to get their drafts passed, and an editor acting in good faith would have made sure I had seen it, and an admin certainly should have first issued a warning especially since the conduct was not ongoing. This is very similar to another incident where Coffee told an editor they had "10 minutes to comply" and sanctioned without even waiting for a response. It's unreasonable and rash and bad for editor retention, because the good faith productive editors are the ones that are going to walk away. Dr.K I don't give a wha if you support an early unblock. I very nearly left after the last block, and nothing has changed, until the root cause of this problem is addressed I am not putting anymore time into this project. Seraphim System (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, you are correct. The consensus required restriction is indeed also applied here. That still doesn't excuse a single thing you did. And your continued need to use ad hominem to excuse your actions here isn't very promising either. 1RR blocks are immediate no matter what, there is no room for "discussion" when you've already been told by other editors that you were in violation. You don't need an admin to tell you something you already know, especially something you know so well you could point to the exact editnotice that prohibited your actions (the one you falsely claimed above you had no idea of:
"I don't edit in the Syria topic area and I didn't know there were any sanctions
"). I suggest you take a break from the area entirely if you can't see the reason for your block, because when it expires I will be forced to levy much heftier sanctions on you if you continue down the same vein of behavior. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)- I found that edit notice from the editnotices navbox. Regarding your comment
the one you falsely claimed above you had no idea of
Had I known about the editing restrictions, I would have requested that Etienne be sanctioned for the consensus clause violation, instead of trying to improve and include the content based on the Associated Press source.1RR blocks are immediate no matter what, there is no room for "discussion"
is exactly the type of heavy handed attitude the entire community has asked you to tone down, where even admins and arbs tend to agree that even experienced editors unintentionally violate 1RR and that sanctions should be a last resort. The purpose of the blocking tool is to prevent disruption. It wasn't immediate, by the time you blocked me, it had been 24 hours since I last edited the article and I wasn't planing to make anymore reverts (and I didnt even when Yerevantsi reinserted the content again here [7] in violation of the consensus clause).Seraphim System (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I found that edit notice from the editnotices navbox. Regarding your comment
- Ah, you are correct. The consensus required restriction is indeed also applied here. That still doesn't excuse a single thing you did. And your continued need to use ad hominem to excuse your actions here isn't very promising either. 1RR blocks are immediate no matter what, there is no room for "discussion" when you've already been told by other editors that you were in violation. You don't need an admin to tell you something you already know, especially something you know so well you could point to the exact editnotice that prohibited your actions (the one you falsely claimed above you had no idea of:
- (edit conflict × 4)
I wasn't talking to you SS. My comment was directed at the unblocking admin and, given your unblock request, I was trying to make your unblock easier. In any case, FWIW, per basic rulebook of unblock requests, UNBLOCK101: "Arguing against the blocking admin's past actions is not a good unblocking strategy". But whatever.Dr. K. 03:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC) - Having read your reply more carefully, I get your point and struck my previous reply. I think that when things calm down, you should stay. Dr. K. 03:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Admins wikilawyering over the notifications required after ArbCom has already opined that notifications are essential for sanctions is disturbing. It is plainly obvious that admins should ensure awareness prior to blocking. It's formalized under AE sanctions but the concept and logic behind it is not limited to AE sanctions, but administrator acctions in general. Such actions need to be reviewed by...well, Arbcom. I'd urge Coffee to unblock rather than arguing a distinction without a difference. It seems difficult to believe ArbCom would view admin action favorably after the very recent decision that admins should ensure notification. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: You're missing my entire point: They were warned. I will not be making any such unblock, and you need to stop WP:HOUNDING me before I report you at WP:AN. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of hounding you in any way. Asking you to reevaluate admin action is not hounding. I'd appreciate it if you would remove the aspersion or explain why you think it's hounding. My talk page is probably the best place for diffs. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- user was warned adequately here: special:diff/821982117. I think the block is fair here. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Dr.K.: SS is a lady? —usernamekiran(talk) 03:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Dr. K. 03:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Coffee: To the extent that they were unaware of it, it's clear Seraphim System has now got the message re reverting in this article. The block was also more 24 hours after the edit that caused it, so it is/was not quelling a current edit war. On this basis, I'm not immediately seeing how this week-long block is preventative. Or to put that another way: to the extent that there was disruption before, what disruptive action is likely if the block is now removed? -- Euryalus (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. I mean, a block is ccepted here. But a week seems a little harsh. I think a block of 12-24 for hours would be okay in such situations. But as this was 24 hours ago, and based on the user's statements; I think the message got through, and user can be unblocked. But again, i dont have much experience in this field. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Coffee: To the extent that they were unaware of it, it's clear Seraphim System has now got the message re reverting in this article. The block was also more 24 hours after the edit that caused it, so it is/was not quelling a current edit war. On this basis, I'm not immediately seeing how this week-long block is preventative. Or to put that another way: to the extent that there was disruption before, what disruptive action is likely if the block is now removed? -- Euryalus (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Dr. K. 03:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Dr.K.: SS is a lady? —usernamekiran(talk) 03:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: You're missing my entire point: They were warned. I will not be making any such unblock, and you need to stop WP:HOUNDING me before I report you at WP:AN. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Admins wikilawyering over the notifications required after ArbCom has already opined that notifications are essential for sanctions is disturbing. It is plainly obvious that admins should ensure awareness prior to blocking. It's formalized under AE sanctions but the concept and logic behind it is not limited to AE sanctions, but administrator acctions in general. Such actions need to be reviewed by...well, Arbcom. I'd urge Coffee to unblock rather than arguing a distinction without a difference. It seems difficult to believe ArbCom would view admin action favorably after the very recent decision that admins should ensure notification. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Euryalus and Usernamekiran: It is standard procedure to place blocks for 1RR/3RR/AE violations if the violation occurred after due warning (which obviously happened here), regardless of how long it was after the violation was caught the block or sanction is still applied. This happens all the time at WP:AE when we have to come to a consensus before taking action in hard to determine cases, which sometimes takes up to a week. But, the sanctions are still levied. @GoldenRing, Sandstein, TonyBallioni, and Primefac: and many others with experience in handling these types of violations can confirm this to you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. But what is it now preventing? -- Euryalus (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies, El C, EdJohnston, and Bbb23: As former blocking administrators of this user (some even for AE and EW), I'd be interested to hear you explain to Euryalus just what problems might we see from removing this (much deserved) block. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Coffee, I'm sorry, but being unable to read up I got nothing to offer. Below, I see your "I see no need to block it as long as we can trust Seraphim System will abide by this current sanction" and in principle I agree with this--again, not knowing the goings-on here. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Notice anything strange about who just so happened to start reviewing this block... even though it falls entirely outside the realm of AE? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Spare me the conspiracy theory please. Asking an on-wiki question about a block is a run-of-the-mill activity. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Euryalus: It might be "run-of-the-mill" for someone more active than you, or for someone who isn't a sitting Arb. And it might even be believable if you had ever edited this talk page before today (hint: you haven't). No, I'm not buying it one bit. Use of the appeal to ridicule logical fallacy by you here to discredit my concerns is highly disconcerting too. This is the second time in two days this type of crap has happened, and I'm starting to get more than a little suspicious. And instead of sending me off-wiki emails, how about you start making your comments public? There's no reason what you emailed me couldn't have been said here. (@The Rambling Man: his tone was completely different in the two mediums of communication too... trying to act hardball on wiki and softball off wiki. Something is definitely up, and someone in ArbCom needs to put a stop to it now.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm glad Seraphim System struck down the part hinting on Coffee's anti-Turkish bias, which I very much doubt exists. As for Euryalus and Coffee interaction directly above, I plead ignorance on what exactly is happening there. Look, from my perspective, as someone who blocked her twice, while Seraphim System is an extremely productive editor, and the thought of the project losing her pains me, the block does seem proportionate enough. I say that because looking at the current block log (several additional entries of which are new to me), reveals someone who at this point ought to have been more careful with 1RR. And I think the editnotice serves as a sufficient warning in itself. My view of preventative administrative action on Wikipedia does have an element of deterrence to it, so in that sense, the block could be seen as preventative of future disruption. I'd still like to emphasize, overall, that Seraphim System benefit far exceeds her cost to the project, which something I hope we don't lose sight of throughout this dispute. El_C 05:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fair points. Thanks to you and Khirurg for the replies. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @El C: The edit notices absolutely are not enough - I cant be more careful with something I don't know. If the editnotices were enough we wouldn't require templates for D/S. We just got the D/s situation resolved - awareness is required, so I am expecting a formal notice, and I am told to be careful, because if they are general sanctions the templates aren't required. Why would awareness be less of an issue because the sanctions were proposed at AN? It is even more confusing that there are templates sometimes but don't get to used to it, because you may be surprised you with general sanctions. Seraphim System (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's a good point—about needing a warning for DS but not GS—it may fall outside the scope of this, but it is a good point. Myself, I don't think there needs to be a warning for DS, either. I think editnotices are enough, because they are so visible. I'm not sure why there is such a discrepancy in the rules, though. El_C 06:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- They are not enough for everyone. I don't have enough screen space for the notices to be visible so I am in the habit of scrolling down to see the editing box - that is a habit developed because my screen's limitations. Just because you can see them doesn't mean everyone can. Someone may have a monitor from the 90's. It happens. For me, the templates serve as notification to look for the notices. Sanctioning me over the same thing a second time without hearing what I am saying about this is not likely to be helpful. Seraphim System (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe your screen space is a plausible excuse for you not obeying this warning. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- You have accused me of lying several times now Coffee but I have already said that I didn't see the warning. That should really be enough. The issue is you are accusing me of lying and acting in bad faith, and that is a problem for me. And obey is a poor word choice, I am not going to "obey" Etienne in any fashion, editors do not "obey" warnings left by other editors, but had I seen it I would have self-reverted and filed a complaint against him for violating the consensus clause. Seraphim System (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe your screen space is a plausible excuse for you not obeying this warning. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- They are not enough for everyone. I don't have enough screen space for the notices to be visible so I am in the habit of scrolling down to see the editing box - that is a habit developed because my screen's limitations. Just because you can see them doesn't mean everyone can. Someone may have a monitor from the 90's. It happens. For me, the templates serve as notification to look for the notices. Sanctioning me over the same thing a second time without hearing what I am saying about this is not likely to be helpful. Seraphim System (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's a good point—about needing a warning for DS but not GS—it may fall outside the scope of this, but it is a good point. Myself, I don't think there needs to be a warning for DS, either. I think editnotices are enough, because they are so visible. I'm not sure why there is such a discrepancy in the rules, though. El_C 06:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @El C: The edit notices absolutely are not enough - I cant be more careful with something I don't know. If the editnotices were enough we wouldn't require templates for D/S. We just got the D/s situation resolved - awareness is required, so I am expecting a formal notice, and I am told to be careful, because if they are general sanctions the templates aren't required. Why would awareness be less of an issue because the sanctions were proposed at AN? It is even more confusing that there are templates sometimes but don't get to used to it, because you may be surprised you with general sanctions. Seraphim System (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fair points. Thanks to you and Khirurg for the replies. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Spare me the conspiracy theory please. Asking an on-wiki question about a block is a run-of-the-mill activity. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies, El C, EdJohnston, and Bbb23: As former blocking administrators of this user (some even for AE and EW), I'd be interested to hear you explain to Euryalus just what problems might we see from removing this (much deserved) block. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. But what is it now preventing? -- Euryalus (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
(unindent) @Euryalus: Considering a) the user was aware the page was under 1RR, 2) the user reverted after being warned about 1RR, and 3) considering the user's block log and my own past experience with them, I'd say the odds of future disruptive action is pretty high. Khirurg (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, maybe so. A week seems a bit long, especially given the gap between the edit and the block. But thank you for the answer. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is a long block, but consider also that this user had already been blocked 5 times in less than a year, all for edit-warring. Clearly the message is not getting through. Khirurg (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Khirurg since you recently accused me of HOUNDING you, I have not interacted with you at all, and I feel that has been going well for both of us. I have already said, the message is not going to get through as long as article some special restriction I don't know about. The vast majority of my recent edits have been pure maintenance work and as soon as I make some content edits it turns into another dispute for violating some special editing restriction I wasn't aware of - if the point is that editors should be aware for D/s, and we've tightened it up, why would that be different because the sanctions were imposed at AN? It doesn't even make sense. How is an editor supposed to keep track of all the different restrictions in an area they don't regularly edit in? Even Coffee, an admin, did not know there was a consensus required provision on the page! And I didn't know about 1RR - it seems we are all capable of making mistakes. I think your feelings about this are likely colored by the fact that you have been directly involved in these previous content disputes, and is not an accurate statement whether or not my behavior or conduct is detrimental or disruptive to the encyclopedia. More to the point, after accusing someone of HOUNDING or stalking you, I don't think it is good form to post on their talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is a long block, but consider also that this user had already been blocked 5 times in less than a year, all for edit-warring. Clearly the message is not getting through. Khirurg (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, maybe so. A week seems a bit long, especially given the gap between the edit and the block. But thank you for the answer. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Since I've been pinged here, I'll opine. The GS in place allow admins to block for 1RR violations without any warning or alert being given. There is an edit notice on the page. The block is therefore clearly not invalid for process reasons. They were also dropped a courteous notice at their talk page that they had violated 1RR. That would have been the time to stop, check what the page restrictions are and self-revert. Instead they chose to carry on. The revert after the warning is the least obvious of the reverts reported at ANEW, but still counts as a revert, and the language of the GS makes clear that admins are to to err on the side of considering something a revert, not on the side of caution ("When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert
"). I therefore think the block was warranted. The discussion above about not having read the edit-notice is no excuse. If you're editing in contentious areas, you need to go carefully, and that includes reading edit-notices.
Regarding the length of the block, 1 week does seem harsh at first glance, but as others have pointed out, this editor is building up quite a log of blocks for edit warring in contentious areas over the last year and after blocks of 12, 24, 48 and 60 hours, 1 week seems a reasonable escalation to me.
The only mitigation I can find is that one of the reverts reported at ANEW (this diff) is apparently reverting an IP, which is exempt from 1RR. I don't think this materially changes things. GoldenRing (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Good block. 1 week seems a pretty standard escalation for 1RR violations given the past history. I concur with GoldenRing’s analysis. Euryalus, while I probably respect you the most of anyone on the current committee, I think it was somewhat unwise of you to post here given that yesterday an arb took an action that reasonably could make him a party to any future case involving Coffee. I’m not one of those people who are prone to criticizing ArbCom in public, so it takes a lot for me to say that. I know you were only trying to help here, but given the context of the past few days, the optics aren’t good. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: you're probably right, though I'm not a supporter of conspiracy theories and find his particular one somewhat extraordinary. Anyway, I hope its clear from my comments above that I've withdrawn from this discussion other than to thank those who replied. Coffee, apologies if anything I've added here caused concern, it certainly wasn't the intent. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Euryalus: yes, I was only referencing the optics here. Like I said, I know you were trying to be helpful, but I thought it worth mentioning on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni, The Rambling Man, and Nihonjoe: This was no coincidence... I even am being harassed by Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) via email for apparently getting involved in AE matters in this case (without explaining to him why I planned on continuing to administer the area, which is in no way required by any policy), regardless of the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with Arbitration Enforcement (as it is a community sanction being enforced here) and therefore does not in any way fall under the purview of ArbCom. - I am starting to feel as though I'm being treated as though there is some sort of active Arb case against me, when there completely and entirely isn't. This needs to stop now, or we need to start having a serious discussion about Alex, Euryalus, Worm, and several other members of the committee's continuing placement on the committee (or at least their ability to ever be involved in any ArbCom case that ever reaches their desks, being that this type of behavior conceivably makes them "involved parties") as they are extremely overstepping their bounds here. I shouldn't have to deal with this type of harassment when I'm making well-founded blocks and in no way violating policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the emails, and as such, I don't want to comment on those. As I said above, I have a very high opinion of Euryalus, but I think given Alex's post yesterday individual arbitrators should be taking a wide breadth from commenting on things in their individual capacity on-wiki. NeilN's post on Nihonjoe's talk sums it up pretty well. I think this block is good, but I won't be the one declining it because it reasonably could be argued I'm involved i.r.t you, Coffee, as I've pretty consistently spoken on your "side" during community discussions (though that has always been done independently, and despite the speculations of IP addresses, we have never known each other very well). I also think that Seraphim System's talk page isn't likely the best place to discuss this. They can reasonably expect to have their block reviewed by an uninvolved administrator, and probably don't want things involving drama with the Arbitration Committee on it. I've given my opinion as someone who likes both the blocked user and the blocking admin, and at this point, I think it is best to let someone neutral who is patrolling CAT:RFU to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Coffee: I'm sorry, but I don't have time to become familiar with this issue well enough to make an informed statement regarding it. I'll let my other comments stand as they are. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) There's User:SeraphWiki too, of course, but although probably serving as an irritating temptation, I think we know SeraphimSystem well enough that it will remain unused for the duration. Sorry about this SS; best thinkg is just to avoid that whole editing area—too volatile! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: I agree... I see no need to block it as long as we can trust Seraphim System will abide by this current sanction. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- No., I am not coming back after this block, for either account. Someone else at AfC should pick up my reviewed drafts because I am still getting requests for assistance at the talk page. But no, I will not be staying after this block. Not losing editors is another thing you all need to think about when sanctioning editors who made a good faith error. The fact that you've done it twice in a short time does not make a longer block warranted, it means you were wrong twice and I gave it a second chance. Seraphim System (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- This site is voluntary: no one asks for you to edit here and no one requires it. If you choose to edit here or not when you have access to, that is under no one's control but your own. No one is going to open a memorial page for someone who isn't willing to comply with our community norms. So, leave if you choose to, but as your block wasn't indefinite, don't blame someone else for your choice. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- No., I am not coming back after this block, for either account. Someone else at AfC should pick up my reviewed drafts because I am still getting requests for assistance at the talk page. But no, I will not be staying after this block. Not losing editors is another thing you all need to think about when sanctioning editors who made a good faith error. The fact that you've done it twice in a short time does not make a longer block warranted, it means you were wrong twice and I gave it a second chance. Seraphim System (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: I agree... I see no need to block it as long as we can trust Seraphim System will abide by this current sanction. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I already "officially" declined the appeal, but have we considered commuting this block to an appropriate topic ban instead? Say, from all pages covered by WP:GS/SCW&ISIL? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't be opposed to such an idea. My interests are always in prevention over punishment so if we can find a workable solution using a topic-ban, I'm all for it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I won't accept any topic ban - I've been sanctioned twice for good faith errors in a short period. I don't even edit in WP:GS/SCW&ISIL but it is the principle. I work as hard as any of our admins and I'm not going to accept escalating sanctions for good faith errors - I have been trying to avid blocks so I could help at NPP. It was a good faith mistake - Etienne violated the consensus clause knowing about the restriction, so reverting his violation should not even be a 1RR violation. I am choosing to leave because I think it was a bad block, and that is final - not because I want to. I am actually heartbroken, but editors do leave over things this, and it is your fuckup when they do. Seraphim System (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I wrote something that edit-conflicted with this, but I'm going to put it down here anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- And just correcting: you've been blocked five times in the past year for things you ought to know not to do without being told, for which you were warned anyway prior to being blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, I have been been blocked twice for violating 1RR on pages that I didn't know were under 1RR. This is one of those blocks. I am not a new editor anymore, and this block is because the discretionary sanctions are incomprehensible no matter how much care an editor takes. It's not my "escalating behavior" or anything I "ought to know not to do without being told" and I don't like being talked to like I am a disruptive editor with a pattern of behavioral problems, when in reality I know I spend most of my time removing citations to Wikipedia and correcting reference formatting on newly created articles. Its overdue for the block tool to be separated as an elevated permission. Not everyone who has a mop needs or should be trusted with it. Editor retention is more important, as anyone who works at AfC knows, we bend over backwards for it. I don't think 1RR and 3RR actually make that big a difference, its extended confirmed protection that does most of the work anyway. I think you should take that seriously before you lose even more editors. Seraphim System (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- And just correcting: you've been blocked five times in the past year for things you ought to know not to do without being told, for which you were warned anyway prior to being blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I wrote something that edit-conflicted with this, but I'm going to put it down here anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I won't accept any topic ban - I've been sanctioned twice for good faith errors in a short period. I don't even edit in WP:GS/SCW&ISIL but it is the principle. I work as hard as any of our admins and I'm not going to accept escalating sanctions for good faith errors - I have been trying to avid blocks so I could help at NPP. It was a good faith mistake - Etienne violated the consensus clause knowing about the restriction, so reverting his violation should not even be a 1RR violation. I am choosing to leave because I think it was a bad block, and that is final - not because I want to. I am actually heartbroken, but editors do leave over things this, and it is your fuckup when they do. Seraphim System (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Proposal - that in light of Seraphim System's ongoing disruptive behaviour in this topic area which continues after multiple blocks and warnings, their block is converted to a topic ban from all pages covered by WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, as defined by the community sanctions page. I suggest the ban may be appealed after six months, and it ought to go without saying that this ban applies to any alternative account, and any violation is likely to be met with a long block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just no. This is harassment plain and simple. It's sad when we don't have admins sympathetic to blocked users and don't understand how a week long block can make them feel unwanted. Please stop this. --DHeyward (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: your accusation of harassment is something I would like to take seriously. In light of a block resulting from a pattern of disruptive behaviour which has been endorsed by multiple editors, I've suggested an alternative which would permit the editor to continue editing while preserving the affected topic area from their disruption. Could you please elaborate on how this is harassment? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- The length of this section and threats of increased sanctions for asking for a block review is harassment. Anyone who's been here knows an indefinite topic ban is a stiffer sanction than a limited time block. If you really want to be preventative, replace the two-week block with a two-week topic ban. But continueuing to badger the editor is not conducive to collaborative editing. Nor are comments that in effect say the community is better off without them which is expressed by the sanctioning administrator. Leave them alone rather than leaving comments that are baiting. Any admin that continues commenting here with derogatory accusations are taunting and harassing and unnecessary. They are civility traps. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fore reference
Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.
is the first paragraph of the policy. I am not involved with this editor and it's pretty obviousthat this discussion meets the definition. --21:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're way off the mark with that, and I don't see how inserting a sinister intent into a pretty plain administrative discussion on a sanction review helps at all to make the situation pleasant or welcoming for the blocked user. I've attempted to suggest an alternative to a flat-out block that gets everyone back to the business of building an encyclopedia, that's literally all. I also have no prior involvement with this user and avoid this topic area, I just happened to come across this while patrolling open unblock requests. I am neither badgering, threatening, nor intimidating anyone, and I am offended by the suggestion. Anyway, I'm going to go do something else now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think Ivanvector was trying to help. Sometimes editors still choose to leave on principle when they feel they are being treated badly or disrespectfully. They will sometimes be offered various proposals such as this one, but in some cases still leave because it is the principle of the matter, and not the duration of the block or any other thing, and that is the situation here. I'm not happy about it, but I'm sure I will find something else to do with all of my free time. Seraphim System (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're way off the mark with that, and I don't see how inserting a sinister intent into a pretty plain administrative discussion on a sanction review helps at all to make the situation pleasant or welcoming for the blocked user. I've attempted to suggest an alternative to a flat-out block that gets everyone back to the business of building an encyclopedia, that's literally all. I also have no prior involvement with this user and avoid this topic area, I just happened to come across this while patrolling open unblock requests. I am neither badgering, threatening, nor intimidating anyone, and I am offended by the suggestion. Anyway, I'm going to go do something else now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sanctioning administrator comment - In light of this users recent reply that they would not comply with such a topic ban, I think their departure from the site is what would be happening eventually anyways. Anyone unwilling to abide by community standards at least 5 times is likely to end up with an indefinite block regardless of what we try to do to save them from themselves. This editor is clearly unwilling to change their ways, so therefore I revoke my previous support for vacating this block to be replaced with a topic ban which the editor states they will refuse to adhere too anyways. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- And comments like these are why I'm leaving
likely to end up with an indefinite block regardless of what we try to do to save them from themselves
- oh please. I don't see myself as a problem editor and I don't especially think that Coffee should be trusted with any special permissions. This community has a lot of issues it needs to sort out, but if this is the "consensus", I would rather leave - which is not something disruptive editors do, it's something good editors do when they give up on trying to reason with you. Seraphim System (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)- Now if you'll excuse me, my truly beloved dog just died, and I have other personal stuff on my mind that is more important then Coffee trying to salvage her reputation by insulting me further. Seraphim System (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- So sorry to hear that, I wonder what I would have done had my dog died.
- I hope you reconsider your decision of leaving, just take the week off, nothing is settled yet; so doesn't worth to stress over a possible topic ban. Yaḥyā (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, came here for a different reason (see below) and I see you are leaving. I agree with Yahya just take a break but either way thank you for your precious contributions to Wikipedia. Sorry for your loss, sounds really sad. Regards.--Abbatai 07:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can't just "take a break" - there is nothing I can think of that will excuse this or make it right. I am serious about not working for a project that turns a blind eye to a long term pattern of anti-Turkish editing, and then on top of that, accuses me of "escalating disruptive behavior" because I violated some arcane special editing restriction I didn't even know about. This is not a situation where you can insult me and we can all just continue working together in the future, and I am truly sorry about that. I respect your consensus, but I don't accept it. Continuing to edit here would mean accepting it. I don't expect anyone to change their mind because of this but I would rather leave on good terms, then go through another round of comments that I consider profoundly disrespectful and insulting ever again. I am only writing to request that my user page be deleted, my contribution history deleted, and my articles also deleted by my request if they have not had significant contributions from others. They are precious to me, but I can't excuse this. I'm really very sorry this is how it turned out, but I just want some closure on what as been a big part of my life for the last year. Seraphim System (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, as an editor has been blocked several times I totally get your point. Each time I thought the block was unfair but later on when you spend enough time to see how things work here on Wikipedia you will understand editors should be extra cautious in editing some certain areas. A dubious IP can get the most prolific editor banned if they have enough "editing "skills". You are being over sensitive here. Anyway I respect your decision to leave or stay. One more thing articles you created cannot be deleted upon your request as long as they qualify Wikipedia standards. Creators are not the owners of the articles. Regards --Abbatai 09:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can say this, being blocked and then dictated to that I was "adequately warned" and "esclating disruption" really has not made it more likely that I will be "extra cautious". That is exactly the type of block admins should avoid. I am not going to continue editing because I am being told that my editing is disruptive and my behavior is inexcusable. On my end, I'm really not inclined to care more about edit notices after this because I've been threatened with "escalating sanctions" - it's just not going to happen. I think that is a good way to lose editors. All anyone needed to do was ping me and let me know and I would have complied, but now I don't give a shit. I would say that whatever our admins thought they were accomplishing, it has been completely ineffective.Seraphim System (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, as an editor has been blocked several times I totally get your point. Each time I thought the block was unfair but later on when you spend enough time to see how things work here on Wikipedia you will understand editors should be extra cautious in editing some certain areas. A dubious IP can get the most prolific editor banned if they have enough "editing "skills". You are being over sensitive here. Anyway I respect your decision to leave or stay. One more thing articles you created cannot be deleted upon your request as long as they qualify Wikipedia standards. Creators are not the owners of the articles. Regards --Abbatai 09:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can't just "take a break" - there is nothing I can think of that will excuse this or make it right. I am serious about not working for a project that turns a blind eye to a long term pattern of anti-Turkish editing, and then on top of that, accuses me of "escalating disruptive behavior" because I violated some arcane special editing restriction I didn't even know about. This is not a situation where you can insult me and we can all just continue working together in the future, and I am truly sorry about that. I respect your consensus, but I don't accept it. Continuing to edit here would mean accepting it. I don't expect anyone to change their mind because of this but I would rather leave on good terms, then go through another round of comments that I consider profoundly disrespectful and insulting ever again. I am only writing to request that my user page be deleted, my contribution history deleted, and my articles also deleted by my request if they have not had significant contributions from others. They are precious to me, but I can't excuse this. I'm really very sorry this is how it turned out, but I just want some closure on what as been a big part of my life for the last year. Seraphim System (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Now if you'll excuse me, my truly beloved dog just died, and I have other personal stuff on my mind that is more important then Coffee trying to salvage her reputation by insulting me further. Seraphim System (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- And comments like these are why I'm leaving
Here is what our blocking policy actually says:
In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate.
- when this was pointed out to Coffee, instead of agreeing to reverse her block, she pinged other admins to seejust what problems might we see from removing this (much deserved) block.
- the truth is absolutely none, and reviewing my contribution history and behavior pattern closely supports this. If the block were lifted, I would have gone back to creating resources for law students and law professors, like my unfinished project here User:Seraphim_System/sandbox. I think this was more about preventing another one of her blocks from being overturned than any danger of disruption I actually pose, and that I just got caught in the middle. Her responses last night were erratic, including pinging the The Rambling Man, who as far as I know is restricted from this type of speculative banter. To me it feels like she was more concerned with defending her block, than whether or not I actually posed a risk of further disruption. Was there a current conduct issue? No. But Coffee pinged about a dozen admins, most of whom don't have even the remotest connection to this issue, in the hopes that someone would show up and defend her block. And they did. But because of the amount of scrutiny Coffee is under, I can't know if some part of the discussion was influenced by their wanting to support her. As long as this situation is unresolved, I think any block Coffee makes is more about Coffee, than the editor. I am sensitive to that, and I wish her well and everything, but I don't want to be caught in the middle of it. I am a productive editor, who made an unintentional mistake, and I feel like I've gotten caught up in a lot of bull. Seraphim System (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just keep castings aspersions, I'm sure that's a way to get unblocked </sarcasm>. Also, let me call out this flat out lie for what it is:
"All anyone needed to do was ping me and let me know and I would have complied..."
- You were warned via a talk page message more than 24 hours before your block. This did not cause you to reverse your actions, nor suddenly begin to follow our policies. No, instead you continued to make violations and continued on as if you were untouchable (much of the same type of response you've given this entire time here). So don't run around here claiming things that can be empirically proven false. Because if you continue to misrepresent the truth, I or another admin, will be lengthening that block real soon (which you shouldn't mind anyways seeing as you don't intend to edit here any longer after being treated like a regular editor here). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)- I'm not lying. Why would you just assume that an editor saw a message on a talk page when they weren't pinged and they didn't respond. It is outside the bounds of reason to suggest I would have seen that message and just reverted again, because I
continued on as if you were untouchable
, instead of reporting Etienne for the consensus clause violation. (In ARBPIA we did not consider reverts of consensus clause violations to be 1RR violations at all. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles.) You are keeping a sanction in place because you believe I was acting in bad faith and that I am now lying about it. But assume for a minute that I am telling the truth - what would you do in my place? How would you feel? I have stopped editing because I am being accused of acting in bad faith and lying. For that reason alone this block should have been overturned. This should have been a simple request, and instead I have been accused of lying and all manner of malice. I am tired of wasting energy on things like this - it is clear that I still can not be trusted about something this simple. You don't need to threaten to lengthen the block either, because I'm not going to work "collaboratively" with people who don't respect me.Seraphim System (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not lying. Why would you just assume that an editor saw a message on a talk page when they weren't pinged and they didn't respond. It is outside the bounds of reason to suggest I would have seen that message and just reverted again, because I
- Just keep castings aspersions, I'm sure that's a way to get unblocked </sarcasm>. Also, let me call out this flat out lie for what it is:
January 2018
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I realize you aren't able to reply, but perhaps Coffee would consider restoring your talk page access for the purpose of responding to the AN discussion? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Talkpage access restored
I've restored talkpage access, on the principle that we don't, or we shouldn't, silence blocked users just because they vent about the block (within reason) and complain about the blocking admin (also within reason). Please consider that a block is a shock. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: It was merely to allow them to reconsider their thoughts without directly having access to type them out. I don't know if it helped, but it sure seems like it did. And to see the words
Please consider tha a block is a shock
come from your writing, after your actions, is truly rich. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Note
Hey Seraphim System, I've read the above and I'm really sorry that you're stuck in this current mess. I've reviewed enough of the background to see that the block was technically justified—there was a 1:RR violation and a warning—but I'm also open to the possibility that you missed the warning. The only person who can know that is you of course so it can't be much of a factor in our decisions here. Basically what we are looking for in an unblock request is 1: an acknowledgement that you understand what the problem was, and 2: convincing evidence that the problem won't happen again. Other stuff like 3: pointing fingers at other editors who were also behaving poorly or 4: criticizing the blocking administrator, obscure 1&2 and cause some administrators to not see them at all, resulting in a declined unblock request. I kind of see that going on above. I can see item 1 and some of item 2, but also a fair amount of 3&4. Anyway, I realize you're very frustrated right now, but if you are interested in making a new unblock request I am open to reviewing it (provided someone else doesn't get to it first). I would however expect you to make a bigger commitment to #2 than just "I won't edit that topic anymore" or "I'll watch out for pages with 1:RR" or whatever. Something that would work for me would be if you were to make a voluntary commitment to follow WP:1RR everywhere on all pages for a month or two. By voluntary I mean that it would be on-your-honor...no logs of an official sanction or trips to noticeboards if you mess up, just your word. Or if you think of something you think would work better I'm open to that. Basically I'm looking at your block log and I am seeing multiple edit warring blocks, not just this one, so I'd like you to do something to change that in the future, something to get you out of the habit of reverting multiple times, regardless of whether there are special sanctions. Does that make sense? And of course any of items 3 or 4 in the request (or anywhere else) would be a bad thing for the request's outcome.
Anyway if you decide that Wikipedia isn't the place for you, that's entirely your decision and I respect that. But if it were me I would want to make that decision on my own terms and not just be blocked off the project. I also want you to realize that while you might feel powerless at the moment you actually have a lot more control over your future here than you might think. ~Awilley (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Awilley: I would be willing to make that commitment to a 1RR restriction on all pages. I have been trying to not engage in pointless multiple reverts since the last blocks by working on article development in calm topic areas, and focusing on maintenance work. I do understand that there is a 1RR restriction on the page that I violated and I am sorry that I messed up here - even though it was a partial revert, I also understand that is still within the meaning of revert, and was a violation of 1RR. I don't want to be blocked and I think is a voluntary 1RR is a good idea and will likely help me develop better habits and be more disciplined about not engaging these types of heat of the moment revert wars in the future.
- Just clarifying, the "voluntary" 1RR I suggested above wouldn't necessarily result in blocks if violated. I was basically saying I'd trust you to stick to your word. But I'm also fine with a more formal restriction as you suggested below. I suppose it makes no difference if you don't violate 1RR, which is the ultimate goal anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I do understand that many editors want to see improvement from me about multiple hasty reverts and breaking out of the edit warring mentality - the formal restriction may not be necessary - I don't really know if the process would be different regarding logging it and enforcing it, but I will abide by it either way. Seraphim System (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just clarifying, the "voluntary" 1RR I suggested above wouldn't necessarily result in blocks if violated. I was basically saying I'd trust you to stick to your word. But I'm also fine with a more formal restriction as you suggested below. I suppose it makes no difference if you don't violate 1RR, which is the ultimate goal anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim System (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Based on Awilley's suggestion above, I would like to make another unblock request to emphasize that I am sorry I violated the 1RR restriction on the page, and would voluntarily accept a 1RR restriction on all articles for a suitable time so that this does not happen again, with the understanding that additional violation would mean more severe sanctions.Seraphim System (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
1RR restriction for all articles for a month or two sounds like a plan. El_C 08:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Are you truly serious about this? Because just not that long ago you were saying you wouldn't accept any topic ban, nor follow it. This is a very promising development if true. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- A time limited 1RR restriction is much better defined than an indefinite topic ban. I know it's not your intent, but topic bans always lead to complaints by adversaries as well as robbing the editor the ability to contribute in the area they are obviously passionate about. I am sure she is serious regarding 1RR and there is no need to make her grovel. 1RR is not a topic ban and is much better than either a block or topic ban. Please consider that an indefinite topic ban is considered more severe than a 2 week block and I think most editors would consider an offer that replaced a short term block with indef topic ban as a slap in the face rather than a conciliation. I personally would never consider a topic ban over a block. If a 1RR offer is acceptable to the blocking admin, it solves the problem and is a reasonable offer and compassionate to grant it. Thanks for considering it, Coffee. --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Awilley I would recommend a 4 week 1RR restriction (or until March 1st for ease of understanding). That's twice the length of the block. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Administrator note @El C: I'm not sure how familiar with these types of unblocks, but you'll need to be a bit more specific on the expiration of the self-imposed sanction (I personally don't care if it's one or two months, so no input from me on that), and then you'll need to log all of this at WP:ER/UC per standard procedure. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. El_C 08:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Law Barnstar | |
| Your hard work and ongoing contributions are noted.7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC) |
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks. That made me smile. I have never had one of them before. scope_creep (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Irish Artist Page for Dylan Walshe
Reference links have been removed & replaced as requested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krislbarg (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of France
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of France. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Belarus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Belarus. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Silk Road, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tamil and Uzbek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Continuation War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Continuation War. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:ReleaseTheMemo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ReleaseTheMemo. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 5 February 2018
- Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible
- Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles
- Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative
- Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues
- In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations
- Humour: You really are in Wonderland
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Rockettes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Rockettes. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Military Sealift Command
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Military Sealift Command. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
January 2018 GOCE barnstars
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to Seraphim System for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Alepotrypa cave
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alepotrypa cave you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jo-Jo Eumerus -- Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Real News Update
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Real News Update. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Alepotrypa cave
The article Alepotrypa cave you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Alepotrypa cave for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jo-Jo Eumerus -- Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI
I've revdel'd, thanks for making me aware. In the future, private information should be handled by the oversight team. You can find information on how to contact them at WP:OVERSIGHT. If you are unsure if something is oversightable or not, it is always best to contact the oversight team off-wiki for assessment. For things that require revdel under WP:RD2 or WP:RD3, you should also avoid drawing attention to it on-wiki, and should either email an administrator or request revdel at #wikipedia-en-revdel connect on the Freenode IRC network. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Will do, thanks.Seraphim System (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Type 4 Chi-To
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Type 4 Chi-To. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian martyrs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Paektu Mountain
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paektu Mountain. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Appeasement
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Appeasement. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you..
Thank you for your appreciation and barnstar. Cheers. Regards,-- Gazal world (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Giovanni Gentile
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Giovanni Gentile. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital
The article United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
1RR accusation...
[8], a simple honest copy-edit, is a "revert" of what edit? Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- EtienneDolet I count three discrete groups of edits within a 24 hour period. For example your change here [9] is part of a third group, and is a third revert. A copyedit is fixing a typo, or adding a comma. To be outside 1RR it would really have to be a minor copyedit - not change the meaning of the text. A removal with an edit summary
not due
is a revert. If it is a self-revert, please make sure this is indiciated clearly in your edit summary, as that would be exempt from 1RR. - Even experienced editors make mistakes with 1RR and will usually correct them when it is pointed out, and it usually does not require any admin action, but when an editor tries to redefine an unambiguous removal of content as an "honest copyedit" I think it's not a good sign.
- I am just reminding you to adhere to 1RR and follow the same rules all editors are expected to follow while working on controversial articles, as even small changes can be disputed on these articles, it is generally not a good idea to represent them as "copyedits".Seraphim System (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- [10]...but again, how's that a revert? I have made a restoration of which version of the article? It's nothing more than a simple copy-edit and more importantly, it was a consecutive edit. Consecutive edits don't count as reverts. And yes, the other edit wasn't a revert either. That too was a copy-edit. As you may already know, there have been a slew of copyedits going on in the article and that particular edit was not an exception. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Now that I look again there are two, not three, discrete groups of edits, (I don't count Kolbertbot as an intervening edit) so it is two reverts, not three. Would it be a revert if I restored it? If yes, then it's probably best to count it as a revert when you remove it. It's really a matter of editors having a basic mutual respect for one another and editing collaboratively. This edit wasn't challenged, so it doesn't need to go to AE, but it's pretty obvious that it's a removal of content another editor might think is important. It is an outright removal and an unambigious revert. There's no need to keep arguing about it on my talk page, this was just a reminder.Seraphim System (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- [10]...but again, how's that a revert? I have made a restoration of which version of the article? It's nothing more than a simple copy-edit and more importantly, it was a consecutive edit. Consecutive edits don't count as reverts. And yes, the other edit wasn't a revert either. That too was a copy-edit. As you may already know, there have been a slew of copyedits going on in the article and that particular edit was not an exception. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital
The article United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Morlachs
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Morlachs. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment (my own 2 cents)
Regarding your recent edit warring report (which I saw as I also was on the talk page on Afrin (I added to my watchlist when it started, but I haven't been doing much editing there)) - I think you are technically correct, however practically this is the sort of thing you'd be hard pressed to get someone blocked over (one of the reverts was replacing a Turkish source with the more mainstream Reuters - which seems like an article improvement (without going into it)). Personally I try to be better safe than sorry in my editing in the "revert count accounting" - but this looks to me like the sort of thing that 95% of the time would "slide".Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz I don't really want to get him blocked since he has agreed to re-engage with the discussion on talk, but I think a defintion where source replacement would not be counted as a revert formally would be largely unworkable - imagine on another article like US politics where use of liberal/conservative leaning sources is a frequent topic of dispute one editor replaces a liberal source with a conservative source and then another replaces it with a third liberal source and back and forth, on and on. You could end up with a full blown edit wars going back and forth for as many reverts as there are sources. To say source replacement is not a revert would be wrong I think, but no objection at this point to closing No Action as long as Etienne is willing to re-engage on the talk page, which it did not seem he was willing to at first. Seraphim System (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'd imagine that someone swapping CNN for FOX for US politics wouldn't be in the 95% slide zone. :-).Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Probably not, but admins can't make the decision based on whether they think CNN is more reliable than FOX - it's a revert either way, not only when you replace CNN with FOX, but also when you replace FOX with CNN. The only question is whether a block is necessary to prevent disruption, and for 1RR violations a warning is usually enough.Seraphim System (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'd imagine that someone swapping CNN for FOX for US politics wouldn't be in the 95% slide zone. :-).Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Banderites
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Banderites. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2018
- News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators
- Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back
- Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases
- Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain
- Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history
- Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks
Please comment on Talk:Robin Hood
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robin Hood. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush
Can you please finish what you started? Your GA review is on hiatus for quite some time now. I have replied to your image comments and am awaiting further instructions and/or guidelines for the article in question.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Greek royal family
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek royal family. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Black genocide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
GOCE February 2018 news
Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News
  Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days. Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated! End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress. January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words). February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Medri Bahri
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Medri Bahri. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Polyandry
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyandry. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Racism in the United States
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racism in the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Transylvanian peasant revolt". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 March 2018.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2017 March for Justice
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2017 March for Justice you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)