Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/History of logic/archive1

Blocked

Moved from FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) And yet more comment: User:Fram has blocked From the other side and (quite destructively, I must say) has even reverted some of the history of this FAC (referring to that as a "minor edit", if you please). Apparently nothing is more important to Fram than keeping a putatively banned user out, no matter how much that user is improving the project. I disagree with that principle, and have reverted Fram's changes to the FAC; I'm assuming s/he won't wheel war. I have not unblocked From the other side, because I'm awaiting and hoping for consensus to do so. Could somebody please take this to ANI? I have to go out. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Noted. However, from what I can tell, you mean Fram deleted article content, not FAC content. I can find no edits to the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I reverted the banned user latest series of edits (since rereverted, but not by Bishonen, or not by his known account at least), I left alone the vast number of edits by previous sock accounts of this user though because other users edited inbetween. Fram (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"referring to that as a "minor edit", if you please": a rollback is always indicated as a minor edit. Easy come, easy gone, they are not "quite destructively" at all. Edits by banned users may be rollbacked by anyone, and should only be reinstated by people taking the responsability for them. I am not going to do that, since he is correctly (not putatively at all) banned (last month upheld at AN, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive209#Good faith (towards Peter Damian)), and many of his edits under his various guises are problematic. Perhaps not those he made here, I don't care about those, but in general. Anyway, if you would simply unblock From the other side, you would end up desyssopped yourself. Be my guest... I notice that you have willingly and knowingly left socks of this user unblocked. Helping users evade a ban is not really admin-worthy behaviour. By the way, are you a sockpuppet of User:Classicalecon? All in all, I don't really care if you take this to ANI, but you may perhaps have more problems if your actions get scrutinized. Fram (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no horse in this race, and I am not a sockpuppet of User:Bishonen--all I'm asking for is that this issue be dealt with in a satisfactory way. It would have been proper for you to place a block notice on From the other side's user page or notify this FAC directly. Lastly, Peter Damian has AFAICT made few or no disruptive edits in the history of logic area; but even then, nothing prevents us from sending this article to another round of PR by the Phil & Math projects, just for the sake of safety. Classicalecon (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you are a sock, I am just wondering why Bishonene claims twice that he reverted my reversion, while he did nothing of the sort, but you did (which is your right). Fram (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When two people make the same revert almost simultaneously, only the first appears in the editing history, but the second does not get an edit conflict and can easily miss that someone else got the credit. I hope that helps to understand the situation. (By the way, Bishonen is a she, not a he.) Hans Adler 22:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very silly. It was silly of PD to get himself banned for outrageous behaviour in the first place (even twice). It's silly of him that he insists on getting this article featured anyway. It's silly to block him for that when he is cooperating with a bunch of experienced editors (most of whom know precisely who he is), and the wiki is full of harmony. It's silly to rollback his edits just because you can, when there is no advantage for the encyclopedia in doing so. It's silly to block him without properly notifying his cooperators on this page. And it's silly to complain about all this and take it to ANI.

Can we just stop all this silliness please and simply carry on with PD's next sockpuppet, or via someone proxying for him, or just without him? After all, this is still an encyclopedia.

Who knows, perhaps once this article is featured it will break PD's spell and he can stay outside Wikipedia in piece. Perhaps not, but it's worth trying, and another featured article wouldn't be a bad thing, either. Hans Adler 15:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More probably, all it will achieve is his supporters boasting about how ridiculous it is to ban people who provide featured articles, never mind their other disruption. Anyway, I'll notify it when another sock is banned, and I'll try to note as well all admins who knew about it and turned a blind eye. Fram (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you will just continue to be silly and to play your part in this disruption. There is a genuine value conflict here, and this kind of thing must be dealt with elastically. Hans Adler 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it appears that a good deal of this silliness was purposefully created by PD himself in order to disrupt Wikipedia--at least, this seems to be the rationale for his current status. I don't think ignoring PD's sockpuppetry is the best solution, but feel free to petition the Arbcom to repeal PD's ban and put him under indefinite probation (I think this hasn't been tried yet). Classicalecon (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be yet more silliness. My point was that unless somebody stops being silly it's never going to stop. Ignoring Peter's socking is the best solution so long as everybody plays the same game. It means he is on an extremely short lash and knows it. But of course someone must always show that they are cleverer / closer to the party line / whatever than the others. Or just value law and order more than peace and knowledge. Currently I am only waiting for Arbcom to decide that failure to denunciate a sock of a banned user is itself a blockable offence. Hans Adler 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "incredibly short leash" would that be? You are suggesting that we let a banned user who is known to create disruptive socks while being banned edit anyway. How much longer can a leash be? All I see is a "I don't care what he did or does elsewhere on Wikipedia with other accounts and what multiple community discussions have decided, he is improving an article so everything else is null and void". I don't see how that kind of "elasticity" helps at all. Yes, I will continue to block any socks that come to light (most of them became known because he posted them to my talk page, if you want to talk of silliness...). A new checkuser to get rid of whatever socks he uses on unrelated articles may be useful as well. Fram (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators shouldn't get confused about their responsibilities. If you are undermining the work of the encyclopedia in pursuit of a banned editor, you should rethink your strategy. Everyking (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

let a banned user who is known to create disruptive socks while being banned edit anyway. Interesting logic. Apparently, contributing to an article in a relatively underdeveloped area (philosophy) and making a widely-supported bid for FA is being "disruptive", while blocking said contributor during the FA discussion is just dutifully protecting Wikipedia from dangerous ~~unpersons~~banned users. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Ignorance is strength. Classicalecon (talk)

He had one sock blocked in December, and another in January, by admins who weren't aware that they were PD socks, but simply for being disruptive. So yes, he is "known to create disruptive socks" by those who have some knowledge of the broader picture, not just this one article. Rhetoric is easy. Divide et impera and so on... Fram (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your position--I have stricken my comment.Classicalecon (talk)

Disruption

Fram, the purpose of FAC is to evaluate whether articles meet WP:WIAFA; I have left enough on the FAC page so that reviewers will be informed of the issue, with a bolded link to the rest of the discussion here. Please do not prejudice or disrupt the FAC further by adding off-topic commentary to the FAC page; FAC is not a place for that discussion, and reviewers want to focus on the article, not the side issues. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added any new commentary to the FAC page since you moved the discussion here. Please don't make claims of disruption where there isn't any. Fram (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt

"You may perhaps have more problems if your actions get scrutinized. Fram." What problems would that be? I hope everybody feels free to scrutinise my actions in any forum. I'm quite difficult to alarm; and in this case, not even green newbie admins would be any too impressed, I hope, by your dark FUD hints of desysopping; of "willingly and knowingly leaving socks of this user unblocked"; and of "all admins who knew about it and turned a blind eye". Please consult WP:ADMIN to check that admins have no kind of duty to perform actions, administrative or other, on this volunteer project. As for the reason I wrongly claimed to have reverted your reversion, it's simple, or even self-evident: when I went to do so, Classicalecon had already been there before me. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You are mixing things up, Bishonen (again, apparently). You risked being desyssoped when you would have unblocked the PD sock. No dark FUD there, just regular admin standards. The rest I referred to is just questionable behaviour, which may well get you criticized more at ANI than my in-policy actions. Anyway, now that you are back, you can do your dirty work yourself and bring it to ANI, since apparently no one else felt the need to do so, despite your bold plea. Fram (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

section break

I inserted a section break into the FAC discussion for ease of editing, which Ucucha removed "per the FAC instructions"[1]. But, the only thing like that I can find in the FAC instructions is where it says "[p]er talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors". I think that means to not edit someone else's comments by interspersing one's own comments in the middle of theirs. The section break I added was between separate comments of different editors and didn't break up any existing comments. So I think it was ok under the instructions. Can someone re-add it? Thanks. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAC-instructions says "Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings)." The reason is that such breaks tend to give undue importance to posts immediately following the break. Ucucha 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We sometimes make exceptions on exceedingly long and complex FACs, which this one isn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]