Jump to content

User talk:Yunshui/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Arbitration case

I am thinking of filing a case where everything seems very clear. It looks like a open and shut case to me. Can you tell if, prior filing, the case can be discussed or if you can discuss about the case? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's likely to be an open and shut case, you should probably try ANI or DR first. ArbCom generally only hears cases where all other avenues have been exhausted, and if the problem is obvious and endemic, the community ought to be able to deal with it.
As to discussing the case before it's filed, I don't think that would be appropriate. I'm happy to discuss any issues that you have in my capacity as an editor/administrator, but in that case I would likely recuse myself from any future ArbCom case - and I certainly wouldn't be happy discussing a prospective case whilst wearing my arbitrator's hat. Yunshui 雲水 07:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes AN/I had been already tried and after that I found a lot better evidence for backing up my complaint. Also most of the tensions surrounding the AN/I were solved afterwards. On AN/I, not even a single admin acted.
You are not involved here.
There was an SPI that I had filed and only indef block was an appropriate action in this case. Since it was not done, I still find the decision to be problematic[1] where statement of suspect("it is my brother") was taken into account over the evidence, and the previous violations were ignored. The master had been blocked before for block evasion and had clearly admitted to have read the WP:SOCK#LEGIT on an unblock request that was declined.[2] I had brought this to ANI, but addressed back to SPI.[3]
After that ANI, I have gathered more evidences. These suspects should now be ignored, because they belonged to other master.
Upon my new other findings, I have found he explicitly warned others not to recruit "family members"[4] and thus even if the notion(of having brother), which he introduced in the light of the SPI has to be believed, it is still clear that the abuse of multiple accounts policy was 100% intended. Nothing else can be clearer than that when suspect had also worked on SPIs.[5][6][7] Although it is a principle that any new evidence should overturn the previous decisions, and especially when such decision is not even policy based.
We have got two options here, either the accounts should be blocked per usual standards and norms, or we should propose changes to the multiple accounts policy supporting cases such as this, that would clearly support accounting any statement such as the "suspect belongs to my brother", regardless of any previous multiple accounts violation. Which option should we select? It is a serious concern because this is the first problematic SPI I ever saw and finally every closed SPI is going to serve as an example to other. If any of the SPIs are contradictory to the policy, they are going to conflict.
No admins have tried to clear our this case or explicitly refuted my objection. Now since they cannot show a policy supporting such SPI decision, and Arbcom solely relies on policies, I think that is the only place left. The 6 years of abuse of ILLEGIT is clearly apparent and evidenced. These accounts have been used in multiple AfDs, ban discussions, deletion reviews, page move war, edit wars, critical RFC/UA, etc. Decision seems obvious isn't it? I also know that Arbcomm had banned a really productive editor like Altenmann for violating the multiple accounts policy through a motion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure I follow your argument here, but let me address a couple of points that may help you move forward with this.
Firstly, you say that "every closed SPI is going to serve as an example to other". Whilst that's partly true, under WP:IAR we generally don't consider previous interpretations of policy on Wikipedia to set a precedent for future interpretations - the outcome of one SPI is not a carte blanche to resolve every similar SPI in the same way; each case is adjudicated independently on its own merits. The outcome of the Zhanzhao SPI, therefore, indicates no prejudice towards the closing of future SPIs using the "family member" argument in a different way.
Secondly, I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement: "either the accounts should be blocked per usual standards and norms, or we should propose changes to the multiple accounts policy.... The dichotomy you present here shows that this is outside ArbCom's purview - if the accounts should be blocked under the usual processes, then you should present your new evidence in a new SPI (the "usual process") and let the community resolve the issue. If policy needs changing, that is most definitely out-of-scope for ArbCom (we emphatically don't do "policy by fiat") and should be discussed at the policy talkpage.
Unless your new evidence is highly sensative in nature (in which case you should submit it to ArbCom by email), my personal (non-arbitrator) opinion is that SPI or ANI are still the best venues in which to address this. Yunshui 雲水 08:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone tried, and has been warned against it for reasons which I will explain below. Disregarding the fact whether he believed I had a brother or not (even after I sent evidence of our identities to him and another admin), my brother already retired his account which makes it a moot point. What OccultZone failed to mention was that he was:
  • blocked twice for edit-warring against people he thought was me,
  • raising 2 new (failed) SPIs against those same people in an attempt to link them to me,
  • accusing other admins of incompetency when they did not rule to his liking, and got told off for that,
  • threatening to action against them in ArbCom [8] (other admins have weighed in to say their sanctions against him were justified),
  • admin shopping both on-and-off-wiki without success with his list of so-called "evidence" against me,
  • and still trying to pin something, anything against me even then told repeatedly that his behaviour is bordering on bullying/harassment.
Most of which I documented on my userpage but had hoped not to bring up. Maybe he should declare exactly who and how many admins he has already approached with his claims against me, and state their response? He was told repeatedly by many admins to move on (@DoRD:@Worm That Turned:@Callanecc:@Bgwhite:@Salvidrim!:@Mike V:off the top of my head), and have found no new evidence against me that he had not previously declared. Some admins even explicitly warned him about his behaviour against me. Just because I said I did not want to bring this to ANI because I'm sick and tired of his hounding, I see that he has upped his game from admin shopping to approaching arbitrators directly. And since he brough your attention to this, can I ask if there is any way I can get him to stop hounding me? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is the bigger problem that neither admins are actually interested in solving this matter, they continues to ignore because Zhanzhao' continues to hound everywhere I go with this matter and then he alleges me that I am "hounding" him, while canvassing everyone in order to show himself look all good while he has been a totally.
However, this is just becoming highly unbelieveable that how we can bother such a long term abuser of WP:ILLEGIT anymore around. When I talked about proposing a "change" in policy, I was being sarcastic as it is impossible, we cannot. All we need to do is the take proper action because other venues have comfortably failed to produce a policy based result. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Check your contribution list and mine, how many times have I interacted or mentioned you since the ANI and SPIs which got thrown out? And comparatively how many times have you mentioned me and the SPIs. The reason why I pinged those admins is because they can easily verify who's been hounding whom based on your behaviour the past month. They can judge your conduct. I shall leave it at that. I apologize that you have to see this mess, Yunshui. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It is wikihounding when you are checking by my contribution history and participating where you involvement is not even necessary, you don't have to type if you have not socked, but your insecurities speaks louder than you and I have to get rid of it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This looks very much like a situation where an interaction ban might be appropriate, as nobody is well-served by the two of you arguing and levelling accusations at one another. I would recommend that one of you request community input at ANI; if a discussion there fails to reach a suitable solution, then perhaps arbitration would be the best remedy after all. Yunshui 雲水 09:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Yunshui, an interaction ban sounds like a good idea. How should I go about requesting one? Sorry I've never had to do this before. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You have to post at WP:AN. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) AN or ANI is the usual venue. See this recent thread for an example of an IBAN discussion. Yunshui 雲水 09:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

Darkness Shines

While it's true he had that exemption from the topic ban for the article in question, his recent activities there show, in my view, that both the exemption and indeed the entire lifting of his ban have outlived their usefulness. He is clearly back to the exact same pattern of disruptive editing that led to his multiple previous sanctions. Blatant edit-warring ([9], [10], [11], [12]) with several aggravating factors: falsely charging an opponent with "lack of sources", when that editor's addition clearly was sourced ([13]); rude dismissive comments against a good-faith opponent on talk, failing to address content issues in any way [14]; making repeated blanket reverts involving multiple pieces of material while explaining his objection to only one of them ([15][16], this despite the fact that I had explicitly broken down the issue into three different edits, each of which he could easily have reverted separately); downright refusal (or plain inability) to engage substantial arguments in talk [17]. Just as in all the years before, this appears to be as much a temperamental as an intellectual issue, and signifies a deep-seated inability to work constructively with others. What should be done? In my view, the decision to lift his ban was an absurdly bad idea from the start, but of course I'm involved here and can't take action myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm of a rather similar mind myself - I don't think Harry's closure of the AE thread that allowed this exemption was an especially good idea, but he made that call and I'll generally back other admins on their decisions - in any case, I don't think it reversing it would be allowed. I would suggest (given the content of that motion) that this would be best taken to ArbCom; since it's an arbitration remedy that's being invoked I think that makes more sense than engaging in yet another slanging match at ANI. I will raise it for discussion with the Committee. Yunshui 雲水 12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, procedurally, it would be not so much a "reversing" of an AE decision as the imposition of a new (repeated) sanction for a new set of infractions, which could be done by any admin any time. In any case, just for the record and for the avoidance of doubt, what I actually meant with "an absurdly bad idea" was not so much the granting of that limited exception (which might have been useful enough, had it worked), but the BASC decision to lift the entire indef block. Don't know if you were involved in that; given his absurdly long track record of disruption, prior sanctions and second (third, fourth, fifth…) chances, and the absence of any sign of willingness to learn and improve on his part, this unblocking was a spectacularly bad idea and should be reversed as soon as possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The unblock took place while I was off sick, so no, I wasn't involved. Having seen the discussion though, suffice to say the decision was not taken lightly. Yunshui 雲水 13:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
DS was unblocked? I guess I should pay more attention. I'm behind on my wiki politics. That's an ... interesting decision; I would have liked to have been a fly on that wall! I'm not sure where I stand on DS—I've found him both quite personable and deeply infuriating. But I can't see any record of the topic ban being lifted on WP:DSLOG, just the exemption I granted. My thoughts on exemptions like that are that there's no harm in granting them and seeing how things go—they shouldn't be seen as prejudicing other sanctions if they're necessary, and they can be easily revoked if there are problems. Also, the great thing about the new central log is that I can tell that DS has been in trouble in two other topic areas, so the problems aren't limited to India-Pakistan. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No, the topic ban wasn't lifted; it's simply back to the status quo before the indef-block, with the single-article exemption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

Stefanie_K_Barboza opened an unblock request. Based on the ticket I'm pretty convinced the intent was to make a new article, and she accidentally ended up replacing the Biography page without realizing it. Given that justification, would you be opposed to an unblock (obviously keeping in mind that a reblock would occur if the behavior continued)? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shirik: I'm not totally sold on the idea, to be honest - it's abundantly clear that her only purpose here is to promote herself and her method, neither of which would appear to be notable. If we unblock her, it will just mean further work down the line, either for AFC patrollers declining her submissions or administrators deleting them - before applying the almost-inevitable {{uw-adblock}}. I won't argue if you choose to lift the current block, but I would question the advisibilty of such a course of action. Yunshui 雲水 07:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Well..

These ping features don't work that good anymore, thus I am reminding here if you had no notification. I just found one of the incident about which I wasn't even aware[18] and I have added it to the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitrary break, along with some others that I already knew. Please have a read. You would find that there is a long term pattern of edit warring with editors, then blocking them, thus not only violating WP:INVOLVED but also WP:3RR. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) Ping works well if a ping is signed, it doesn't work if it is inserted later in a signed comment, and I don't trust it to work from within templates (although it seems to work). - I will perhaps start listing days without noticeboards as happier than the others, - remembering the last waste of time on AE, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just confirming that I've seen this and am considering the allegations listed at the ArbCom case request. THere is a lot to wade through; it may be some time before I'm able to offer a reply. Yunshui 雲水 08:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I can see that. Like I said, amount of misuse of protection, blocks, rollback, is just very huge here. My recent edit sums up everything. We have now about Swarm as well, I got about others too. I know I sound kinda desperate, but really I would regret if time has run out. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Zhifang waiji

Hello! Your submission of Zhifang waiji at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Zanhe (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I get someone to keep an eye on a user?

Hi--I'm asking you because I know that you're really reliable, but any talk page stalkers are welcome too. User:Micahmpj has been creating and recreating a page on his Minecraft server. He claims to be nine years old. I asked him if I could speak to a parent about this behavior because it seemed to be leading towards a block, and someone claiming to be his mom on his account talked to me. I'm concerned mainly because the grammar skills of the parent appear to be the exact same as the maker of the previous edits. Could you or someone give me a second opinion? Thanks, Origamiteⓣⓒ 01:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

After some consideration, I've opted to block the account; my concerns about his editing are too great to do otherwise. The protection clause allows for blocking in response to a number of protection issues, including:
  • actions placing users in danger;
  • actions that may compromise the safety of children, in accordance with Wikipedia:Child protection
  • disclosures of personal information
  • an account appearing to have been compromised
I feel all of the above apply to some degree, and so blocking is the most appropriate action to take here. Yunshui 雲水 07:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey--the user added an unblock request to the top of their page and the "mother" (still sounding like the main user) added a note at the bottom. Origamiteⓣⓒ 01:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Emotionalobserver

... that's what I called myself after reading an unbelievable post by RO. She was blocked because she promised and didn't keep her promise. Mixed emotions now, please let's watch closely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

She didn't no, but 6 months was/is a wildly ridiculously long block for that. If it had been Jack Merridew or somebody you'd have felt differently!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty unemotional here: just follow the link above, 6 months is what Coffee said in her previous unblock. - I never knew Jack Merridew, I got to know the user as Alarbus, one of the greatest content improvers I met. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Merridew was always a tremendous help, just spotted his name here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Imagine how the Main page would look if you and he had found support ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
He took the monkey image on top of my talk, or here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we just drop the WP:STICK already? You are pointing to a post that is months old. It shouldn't be your job to watch her, it should be our jobs to continue editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87: English is not my first language, but I feel particularly misunderstood by you. When I say "let's watch closely", that is short for "let us watch closely", us being you and me and the rest of the "community". Why should watching be only my job? I want to write articles, not watch. - Let's not discuss how old my post is, - I picked only one of many possible, to not take too much of a valuable admin's time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I understood what you meant, my reply would be the same though why should the community follow RO around? If she gets in trouble okay some editor will report it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you confuse "watch" and "follow around". - I don't follow anybody, and would not ask others to do that, is that clear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought we were talking about the community? I don't know how someone can watch an editor here on Wikipedia without following their edits. Can you explain what you mean by watching then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Or could we perhaps just drop the topic and get back to editing? It is our job, after all... Yunshui 雲水 14:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
(sweet edit conflict this time:) By watching (can't "explain") I mean seeing when something happens to pages on your watchlist (mine is long), which includes user talk, as I saw the posts of RO on Drmies, following those on Cassianto, later Eric, all not improving articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Im going with Yunshui on this one, I hope this can now drop and we all move forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, thanks for opining that I don't improve articles. Sometimes, when it comes to you and your thoughtless comments, I don't know whether to blame the language barrier or the editor. Still, it's nice to know I'm appreciated anyway. CassiantoTalk 12:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Quickly leaping on this grenade before it goes off - Cassianto (hi, by the way!), I'm pretty sure Gerda meant that RO's edits to your talkpage were not improving articles - not that you weren't. Language barrier in full force here... Yunshui 雲水 12:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I got my plurals mixed up. My apologies. CassiantoTalk 12:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm not entirely happy with that unblock - I have seen enough of RO's actions in the past to be concerned - but there was a pretty unambiguous consensus amongst other editors to lift the block; muggins here just did the button pushing, since it seems no-one else was willing to do so. Everyone deserves a second (okay, third or fourth, in this case) chance, and reblocking is easy enough if it becomes necessary; let's let bygones be bygones and try moving forward in a spirit of co-operation. Yunshui 雲水 13:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying the unblock is wrong - but I'm not sure "consensus" would be the term I'd have chosen. Still, best of luck to all in going forward. re: KK87: [19]? — Ched :  ?  13:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that's because a lot of people loathe RO and think she's irritating enough to ignore her contributions to the project, you're not going to get people begging for her to return. To date I haven't seen a valid argument as to why 6 months was appropriate other than "she promised", "I hate her" or "Victoria is about to quit". I personally think her work is a nett plus to the project and in the right conditions could produce a lot of good work here, even if I agree she has a history of conflict with people and needs to stop commenting about other people (and deleting posts from anybody who doesn't agree with her).♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yunshui, you say: "There appears to be a fairly solid community consensus below to unblock ... ". Did you look at the comments deleted from RO's talk, since she regularly and systematically deletes comments she doesn't like from her talk page and bans those editors from posting there.

    She deleted Victoriaearle's comment from her talk page, and minutes later posted something like 19 times on Victoria's page within a few hours. She had her user page deleted by Dennis Brown last November after accusations of being a sock.

    Since her block she systematically deleted all comments by admins, the victims of her harassment, or anyone else who warned against unblocking. She's also banned numerous editors from her talk page, so your "evidence" isn't sound IMO. EChastain (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@EChastain: I was not aware of that, thank you for pointing it out (I tend to assume that editors are polite enough not to try and derail the unblock process by deleting comments directly relating to their block, though clearly that was a mistaken assumption in this case). This raises concerns for me, and I need to reconsider the evidence; however I'm going offline in literally moments and won't be able to deal with it tonight. Instead, I'm going to ask for additional administrative review, below. Thanks for flagging this up; I will review in the morning if no action has been taken by then.
Could someone uninvolved please review the unblock of User:Rationalobserver taking the deleted talkpage messages into account? If it's decided that I made an error and that it would be appropriate to reblock, please go ahead and do so. THanks in advance, Yunshui 雲水 14:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate you looking for a WP:3O, but I really don't think it was needed. Granted, I'm not sure consensus (as one would use the word in closing an XfD) would be the exact wording - BUT, there are indeed a few folks who support an unblock. Administrators are tasked with making judgement calls about what is best for the community, and you did fine in that regard. At least one other administrator was considering unblocking, so you were hardly alone in your thoughts. As you've stated before, should there be additional problems, they can be reblocked. (and I'm sure there will be plenty of eyes on the RO edits. for a while)
On a personal note - I apologize if my comment about "consensus" above was troublesome. — Ched :  ?  16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Per Blofeld's edit below, a-lot of editors are going to be eager to see her re-blocked. Editors shouldn't be watching other editors to the point where they babysit them, there are plenty of articles that need the time it takes to do that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's natural that people will be watching RO. There's nothing wrong with watching, if people have nothing better to do. But if I see obvious obstruction in writing content, whether it's editors slopping tags on her articles, starting posts claiming lots of problems on article talk pages and opening GARs from any of the people who've previously been in disputes with RO it will look obvious to me. That's not to say that RO might not produce some minor problems, but most of us do and most of us don't get people taking pot shots at how crap the content we write is. In terms of content, RO by now will know to be careful with paraphrasing, which was a concern before.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
C'mon folks, leave Yunshui alone. Sorry that you've had to deal with this. At least two administrators including Ched and Drmies have stated that they won't stop anybody from unblocking her, even if like most people here they don't like RO. And even people like Cassianto and Eric who've had serious disputes with RO think 6 months was excessive. So far the concerns about the unblocking of RO have been from the people who loathe her and want to see her gone from the project at all costs. Time will tell if RO is worthy of editing here anyway. In the near future I can hardly see her going straight to Victoria's talk page and attacking her, if that really is a concern here. Long term, perhaps, some sort of interaction ban should be discussed. Will people please just back off now and see how it goes. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, if she does cause trouble an editor will report her soon enough. There are editors who as Blofeld said want her gone from Wikipedia at any cost, I can provide at least one diff if needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem (in the short term) for now for me is not so much "what is RO going to do now?" but how others are going to react and how they approach her. A lot of people here will be eager to see her reblocked asap. If she continues editing and within a few days I see a backlash and people not giving her a fair chance to produce content in peace I will be saying something. People should keep their personal differences out of the project and allow people to produce content. That very much goes for RO too, she needs to stop commenting on people and control her opinions and just get on with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, when you say: "The problem (in the short term) for now for me is not so much "what is RO going to do now?" but how others are going to react and how they approach her."

Are you saying that if anyone RO doesn't "like" edits articles she considers "hers", or offers suggestions/criticisms on that article's talk pages unless she approves, or adds comments that she doesn't like at PRs and FACs on articles she considers "hers" unless they are asked to by her, that you will consider this a "backlash"? (She has posted that she was angry with Victoriaearle for adding comments to a PR without discussing it with her first, thus prompting the last round of RO's harassment of that editor.)

This is what provoked many of her retaliations before, not so much posts to her talk pages. Do you agree that RO's permission must be gained first before an editor she doesn't like, even if they are stellar FA editors, does any of the above? And that if at PR or FAC, criticisms are offered by such editors, you will see a "backlash"? And only invited editors like Maunus can edit Irataba or other article she considers "hers", or offer FAC comments?

I would appreciate it if you could make clear what types of edits by others you would consider a backlash. EChastain (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC))

FAC is always fair game, but I mean general article editing which isn't even GA and in articles RO has created or essentially written from scratch. Things which look like intentional nitpicking not just innocent browsing and commentary/constructive criticism. It also depends upon the article, if she's editing Abe Lincoln, you'd expect a lot of people to question and monitor her work anyway, but if she creates a start class article on an obscure Indian chief and suddenly two or three people are plastering tags on it and proposing for it to be deleted or calling it atrocious work, there's a difference... A few people have already been warned to back off, yourself included, although if Chillum is that editor who is often found hounding Eric then you can't exactly take that one seriously ;-) .♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld:, obviously not, as RO has deleted so much from her talk page, no one can follow it. You're doing the encyclopaedia no favours. Montanabw even suggested taking screen shots of the diffs that disappear so quickly. RO is expert in covering her tracks. Did you look at the trashing she did at FAC of another editor's article last fall (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive2) when she was a "noobie"? So she can give it but not take it. And what about Talk:Donner Party and Talk:Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck), for example.

So you still haven't answered my question. EChastain (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Again EChastain drop it, you have already been asked to stay away from RO in the past. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yunshui said it best, this is best dropped and we all get back to actually editing. Otherwise, it begins to look very personal and preachy, and to put it bluntly, I'm tired of all the chest thumping. She is unblocked. If she does something to deserve blocking, she will be blocked again. Otherwise, we all deserve a second or third chance and if people keep preaching about the past and trying to drive a wedge in between the editor and that fair chance, it reflects poorly on them, and will not be overlooked. Give it a break, give it time, go write articles. That is why we are here. It doesn't require we agree, only that we pull back long enough to see what happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am obviously quite late to this party and the unblock is a done deal, but I do want to post, for the record, that there were at least four people besides @EChastain: who questioned (not necessarily opposed, but opening up the topic for questioning) the unblock of Rationalobserver at her talk page, all of whom had their comments removed and most of us were "kicked off" of the page and told by RO that we were "harassing" her. I posted about this here at @Karanacs: page because I did not want to run into a 3RR problem at ROs page, nor did I wish to return after she had made it explicitly clear that she didn't want me posting there. It's not worth my time or trouble at the moment to list all the diffs of what she removed, but I can on request. I saw her revert @Giano: twice and myself twice as well as @Sagaciousphil: at least once. She also kicked Victoriaearle off her talk page too, that after her harassment of VE being what got her blocked in the first place. A definite look at all deleted comments and a review in light of them wouldn't be the worst idea. Nonetheless, I think that WP:ROPE now applies and I hope RO has learned her lesson, but we shall see. Montanabw(talk) 22:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not true at all. Cassianto has made it perfectly clear that he can't stand RO for obvious reasons, but he's also stated that he didn't think a 6 month ban was appropriate and excessive and essentially he'd like to think RO could be a productive content contributor and stop interacting negatively with people. Am I wrong Cassianto?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some quotes: "RO was instrumental in that arguement and sided with the the other two filthy specimens who made the comments" "They are a nasty piece of work" " RO is a toxic personality" "The Iritaba article is, in my opinion, a load of old rubbish and certainly not worth the paper it's written on" "I'm not to up to speed with the dispute with Victoria but to me, it sounds like she has discovered what sort of person RO truly is." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
...and your point is? Your trying to goad me and you're wasting your time. CassiantoTalk 00:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yunshui, I don't think the unblock was horrible, but I will note that I *tried* to make it clear that there were removed posts from people disagreeing with an unblock here. I guess I should have bolded it. It makes me think more generally, though, that "consensus" on a blocked user's talk page should be taken with a grain of salt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yunshui, the only reason there might have appeared to be consensus is that RO reverted people who disagreed with an unblock. RO did the same thing last time too, which is why I didn't bother to post this time, and I may not have been alone in that. Any unblock request should have taken place on a page not under RO's control, or talk-page access should have been removed for the duration of the discussion (or RO's supporters should have restored the reverted posts to keep the discussion honest). I hope you'll consider restoring the block or requesting a review on AN/I. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone who has offered an opinion here; I appreciate you taking the time to comment on this. Having now had time this morning to fully review the situation, including the deleted statements that I missed, my inclination is to say that I would still have been willing to unblock, largely under the principles described at WP:ROPE. I therefore won't be re-blocking RO myself without evidence of further inappropriate activity on her part, although if another administrator strongly believes the block should be reinstated, I won't contest it.
For myself, I'm taking this as a lesson learned; I shall try to be more circumspect when unblocking users in the future. I appreciate EChastain pointing out my error in not checking back through the talkpage history enough, and offer thanks again to everyone who has opined above. Yunshui 雲水 06:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Yunshui, she and her cohorts will doubtless be blocked again before very long. Giano (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, time will soon tell anyway... I'm not convinced either, particularly without any sort of interaction ban. One chance left to avoid commenting on people again and to focus on content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if everybody would simply stick to articles and discussing articles on their talk pages, we would not need to even consider blocks and ibans, - can we try? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Yunshui, I don't believe we have met. Thanks for the ping Doc. Knowledgekid87, as much as I would rather RO not be here, even I appreciate that some people can change. I told them that on their talkpage if you'd bothered to have looked. I thought their block length was a bit excessive, but a block of some kind was a long time coming. I just hope that they can now get on and improve the encyclopedia rather than go around and fuck everyone off. CassiantoTalk 12:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Or could we perhaps just drop the topic and get back to editing? It is our job, after all...Yunshu It's not always clear what moving on is but I'm certain that this thread isn't an example of it. It's clear that, for better or worse, there will be a lot of eyes on RO and the community should deal with any problems if and when they arise. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

mistake?

in this dif you deleted the AfD notice at Michael Stelzner - your edit note said "substantially different to previously deleted version in 2006; the new AFD needs to run its course." Perhaps you thought you were deleting a speedy G4 tag? Jytdog (talk)

I was - compare the two revisions of the page. Yunshui 雲水 11:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

DYK for Zhifang waiji

Harrias talk 17:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

citations

Thank you for directing me to the essay you wrote. It surely did help me put the citations and references. :) Littlegliff (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome; let me know if you need any further help. Yunshui 雲水 10:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Your help with my User's Page

A quick note to thank you for your explanatiin to elaborate my User's page the right way.

I definitely will use the part you provided as an example and will apply corrections to my page soon.

I really didn't grasp what was wrong with it.

Grateful thanks, Michelle 70.80.69.82 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. By way, in editing here while logged out, you've exposed your IP address - since you're fairly open about your identity I doubt this is a problem, but if you'd like it expunged for any reason, please let me know. Yunshui 雲水 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Yunshui. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
A special thanks for your help at Ek Thi Reeta. Kaayay (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all - thanks very much! Yunshui 雲水 08:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Recreation of Sujit Meher Fake Designer Wikipedia page

--Rohtak camp (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Admin please note this article is not meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines and was deleted 3 times . But with same IP address and fake ID article was created again and again . I request you please block all fake editors which was created same day after deletion with Same IP address . I request you please block all IP address which was used or may be use tomorrow or day or so to recreate this page . Thanks --Rohtak camp (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I've actually salted this page, so it can't be recreated by anyone who isn't an administrator. There's some probable sockpuppetry going on there as well, but I'm hoping that locking the page against recreation will solve the problem. Yunshui 雲水 06:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Unplanned America

Hey, so I was looking up Unplanned America, which is a show that runs on the non-commercial Australian network SBS and is now streaming on Netflix. I saw that the page had been shutdown by you. I was curious as to why & how that occurs when almost every single US & UK TV show along with many from Australia have WIKI Articles, especially when it's existence and authenticity can be so readily verified. Even in other Wiki Articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_in_Australian_television

or websites such as: http://www.unplannedamerica.com/ http://www.sbs.com.au/programs/unplanned-america/

I'm a regular user of Wiki, but about to contribute so I'm more curious than ever as to how things work.

Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbypunk (talk • contribs) 03:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rugbypunk, welcome to Wikipedia. First up, you won't hear me disagreeing that the show is almost certainly notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article - I'm pretty certain we should have a page about it. However, the version of the page that I deleted had two problems. Firstly, large amounts of it appeared to have been copied verbatim from existing text on other websites - because of the way Wikipedia is licenced, that's a copyright violation, and so it needed to be deleted. Secondly, the way the piece was worded was highly promotional - it read like a press release advertising the TV series, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
I've nothing against someone recreating the page with new content, and if you'd like to do that, you'd be very welcome - we have a tutorial and a specific help page for creating your first Wikipedia article, so please feel free to check them out and have a go. Yunshui 雲水 06:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Micahmpj

Hey. You made the initial block of this user, so I'm going to you for this; however, I'm also putting this on Floq's talk page because he removed their talk page access. Wakalaka123 is apparently caught in Micah's blocked IP. I was a bit suspicious when Wakalaka came to me with no previous interaction about his article Chip64, but I let it go. However, Our dad wants us protected!! My brother is upset. Why! im way different than him! UNBLOCK ME! demonstrates the same lack of maturity which got the first account blocked. (Also, what should be done with Chip64? It has no references and reads like an advertisement, and a google search shows a blog review and a barely-arguable notability-establishing article.) Origamiteⓣⓒ 12:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User blocked by Floquenbeam. Origamiteⓣⓒ 16:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Nowt left for me to do here except endorse Floq's actions... Yunshui 雲水 06:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Punisher

The Punisher page is being vandalized, IP address users (or one user) is deleting links and putting info were it's not needed with no explanation.[20][21][22].-108.82.5.50 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like vandalism to me, more like an inexperienced editor (or editors) trying to make good-faith changes. What you have there is a content disputre - I suggest you take it to the article's talkpage. Yunshui 雲水 07:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Action re-play?

A while ago, there were some problems with socks on Kirkwall Ba game; there seems to be an action re-play taking place. I've reverted a couple of times but haven't put any comments on the the editor's talk page as it looks like another obvious sock - to me anyway! As you dealt with it previously, I thought I'd pester you again. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sagaciousphil: What are you doing here? I thought you were indeffed after this SPI OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Eric=Phil. It's obvious when you think about it, they have the same number of letters. Latest Elliotness sock blocked. Yunshui 雲水 11:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
We have another obvious one - Britmax has reverted but maybe we need another block? Is it worth considering protecting it again for a while? I know you're not generally around at the weekends but there's no hurry, unless, of course, Drmies is looking to earn an extra dollar? SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Drmies will have to earn his pocket money somewhere else; I've blocked the latest sock and protected the page again. Yunshui 雲水 09:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ਬਬੀਤਾ ਦੇ ਪਤੀ (talk · contribs) Sock

also a request to hide edits on my talk page. Babita arora 09:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist has already slammed the blockdoor on them; I've redacted the edits to your talkpage as well. Yunshui 雲水 11:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Thank you very much. :) Babita arora 11:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Can you revoke this user's access to his own talk page? Babita arora 09:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Abso-flippin'-lutely; I've also deleted the page. What a thoroughly unpleasant character.
By the way, no need to ping me on my own talkpage - I get a big orange message whenever someone posts here! Yunshui 雲水 09:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Again Thanx; Actually I was so upset by these abusive messages. It has been going on since the past month. Now I am feeling a little bit better. Babita arora 07:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


this edit shows that AHLM13 could have created all those multiligual socks. Everybody was blaming ZORDANLIGHTER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.38.155 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleting My Page

I was not finish editing my page and you just deleted it. It was creditable.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iddoss26 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to Isiah Doss, then you had been working on the page for almost an hour without providing any evidence that the subject is notable. You also removed a speedy deletion template, after being specifically told not to. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we do not host articles on anyone and everyone. Without references to multiple, reliable, independent source that discuss the subject in some detail, the article is not suitable for Wikipedia.
If you wish to try and recreate the page, I recommend you use the Article wizard to submit it for review before it is published. However, since it seems likely that you are, in fact, the article's subject, you should not be writing about yourself anyway; please wait for someone else to establish that you are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia and write an article about you. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please delete this offensive edit history

This is written with uncivil words in Urdu using English letters Please delete the edit History and also hide the comments.--112.79.35.45 (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice. Duly deleted. Yunshui 雲水 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui/Archive_44&oldid=1091653176"