Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 19:25, 23 July 2012 (→Youreallycan: thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Coren is easing back to activity after a long wikibreak to set some Real Life matters back in order (foremost of which finding new employ). He'll still only be around infrequently for a couple of weeks though.

SPI

COuld you add this: I can link the IP's to Hamish though as their previous sock puppets have used the phrase 'horrid little shit' and many of these IP's called me that. To the Hamish SPI as it is important that it is included

You've Got Mail!

I've sent an email regarding my case Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive. I appreciate your feedback, and guidance as to what can be done. Thank you. Ituhubert (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

???

Explaining to would-be admins at RfA that we don't do COOLDOWN blocks is a time-honored tradition, but you've complicated it, with your ANI close " This should give everyone the time to cool down.", Any chance I missed an inside joke?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear that I wasn't talking about the block. — Coren  00:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then I missed it. Sorry.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh duh. Sorry :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it – sarcasm is always risky over a text medium, you probably couldn't hear the dripping tone.  :-) — Coren  00:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the poll at Sgt Pepper

Now User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the straw poll at Sgt Pepper. What should I do, can you help with this please? ~ GabeMc 01:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Andreasegde: A Bit Of A Coup.

Hi. With reference to Andreasegde and the twelve month topic ban: I sincerely believe that to be extremely harsh. And why include related subjects that don’t involve the other party - may I ask how was that punishment arrived at and by whom? You know The Beatles is a very lively forum and leeway is needed. There are some editors there that will run crying to an admin when it suits them (above might be a good example) and generally piss off others, but we tolerate them. Tolerance has always been the key in fact when things got a bit heated, until now it seems. You've been too heavy handed I think, and perhaps inadvertently taken sides; that is how it looks to me anyway. Andreasegde has been a terrific editor on The Beatles, and the place will be very dull now without a character like him around. --Patthedog (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was an AN/I thread where it was determined that Andreasedge's contributions were too problematic to continue, but the ban does allow him to continue participating in the mediation; I'm certain that at its conclusion, the community will be more than happy to reconsider the ban if he behaved positively. — Coren  14:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your short reply. I do understand what happened, hence my reference to a coup. But you failed to answer my question: who meted out this punishment? --Patthedog (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I suppose I did. I'm not certain what you mean by that, though; I evaluated the result of the discussion and applied it. Some of the details (duration, exception for mediation) are a result of my own common sense and experience, however, if that's what you meant. — Coren  18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You’ve walked into a bear trap here. The Beatles talk page is always very hot, political as hell, and you need to be able to read between the lines. Andreasedge is a popular editor who often speaks for quite number of us on certain controversial issues, and by banning him you have effectively split the community. Up until you did that we were all trying to work together. Did you familiarise yourself with the political background to all of this first? If not, you have been duped. This will have to be taken further. Patthedog (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to seek a review of my admin action, of course, but I think you are proceeding under a dangerous misrepresentation.

Misplaced Pages doesn't work with factions and politics; there are no representatives, nor are there allowances made for battleground mentality because one "side" is better "represented" than another. Consensus must be reached through discussion and collaboration, and misbehaviour cannot be forgiven simply because an editor is popular. The fact is, Andreasedge behaved atrociously in that topic area; and his continued participation was a cause for strife and disruption. He hindered the process of reaching consensus rather than help it. — Coren  22:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I support the action, of course, since I provided a small portion of the background evidence that demonstrated, as I and numerous others saw it, that Andreasegde had both recently and well into the past been a problem editor in his relations to others. Now comes "this will have to be taken further"... but Coren, rest assured that I (and I am sure I am not alone) will be happy to back your accurate decision in any venue or forum it may wind up in. Please keep me informed as an involved party and thank you for making a call that, by clear consensus of the editors involved, needed to be made and was arguably long overdue. Jusdafax 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much considered an expert by many editors, for creating situations and traps for the unweary in order to better educate them. I concur 100% with Patthedog's remarks here, and I'd urge you to read further into the diffs involved. Pay particular attention to the style and pattern of GabeMc's contributions, some of it is very easy to miss at first glance, some caution is required with this editor. Penyulap ☏ 02:37, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Coren, we’re just trying to right a wrong; it won’t be easy and we’ll need all the support we can get. Of course it’s political, what talk page isn’t? The Beatles has some of the most passionate and vociferous editors here, and if you can’t detect the undercurrents, then what are you doing making huge judgment calls like slapping a year’s ban on an editor? I’ll come to that later. GabeMc is at the heart of all this, wanting more control of the article, and who sees Andreasedge as a threat. So having him out of the way will be right up his street. There are others like Jusdafax who have old scores to settle; they’re smaller fry but important, as collectively they form a faction. What did you say about not working with politics and factions? There must have been some serious high-fiving after your intervention. Ok, a year’s ban? Where did that come from; is there tariff that you use, or did you just make it up? Justify it for me. A whole year’s ban on The Beatles and any related article including Liverpool, please explain the reasoning behind that savage embargo. Don’t hide behind that: “I'm certain that at its conclusion, the community will be more than happy to reconsider the ban if he behaved positively” bit of your earlier remarks, because at this moment I can’t see that being at all guaranteed, so it ought to be left out of your reckoning. Thank you. --Patthedog (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(←) The duration and conditions are pretty much as "standard" as they get; and the hat I've pulled them out of is the one I wore for three years. I should note that the original discussion did not mention a definite ban at all, or consider an exception for the mediation; if anything, I've been liberal in my interpretation of the discussion. Like I said, you are welcome to seek further review of my administrative action, but I have seen no compelling reason to reconsider it at this point. — Coren  17:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I should add that arguments that other editors might be misbehaving or that the dispute has split into factions is reason against reconsidering as it simply illustrates that there currently is a mentality of camps, "winners" and "losers". If you think someone else is disruptive, dispute resolution is that way. One does not solve a dispute by relaxing restrictions against a misbehaving editor so that they can return to the fray "for the right side". — Coren  17:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pat here.

GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please take a good, honest look at the antics of this editor the past few weeks; he is so obsessed with changing the 'T' in "The Beatles" to lower case (it's that absurd) that he has made it clear that he will stop at nothing to get his way:

• Adding me to "the list" - "Mafia-esque"? What do we mean here?

• Starting a thread on Jimbo's talk page to report an admin for a 3RR that didn't go his way and then continuing to bring questionable difs to the discussion after several editors had sussed him out and told him to stop. (I agree, BTW, that the comment 'grow the fuck up' was out of line, but not the sentiment behind it).

• Any one who disagrees with Gabe is "disrupting" something , is "harassing" him or is "childish": here, and here - please read my post that he felt was "harassment".

• He has attempted to influence the mediation that he started (notice the title of the thread).

• Encouraged one of his cronies to file an SPI against me, since, as you'll see from the discussion, I favour the capital 'T', and after all, I got "caught" socking before (which I have never acknowledged). This way he could silence both myself and the IP, since we have both objected to GabeMc's behaviour.

I also wish to hell someone would reopen this SPI so that we could all know for sure who the sock is not.

As far as andreasegde, I think he should be encouraged to just present the facts and keep the sarcasm out of it; in any event, I feel that 12 months is way too harsh for someone whose contributions have been positive overall. Radiopathy •talk• 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the dispute over 't' or 'T' is a content dispute, and that there is a mediation in progress to examine exactly that. Whether someone is arguing for one or the other is not within the scope of administration, and should be dealt with during the mediation. — Coren  19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And what of Gabe's chronic disruptions? Radiopathy •talk• 19:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The next step would normally be a request for comments. — Coren  20:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• With the exception of Pat, I see the same few cast of characters as were in the minority at ANI coming to hound you on your talk page, Coren. I say again, you made the right call. This is about Andreasegde and his problematic interactions with others. I should note that aside from my brief but extremely unpleasant encounter with him at the Pete Best talk page last year, that I have no stake in any of this cast of characters. I noticed the ANI thread by coincidence, and spoke up to offer testimony because it was the right thing to do, not because of my alleged "old scores to settle" of the undeniably hostile way I was dealt with by Andreasegde. Indeed, this matter is one big time sink, but I am determined to see this through. Andreasegde has never offered anyone apologies or shown any contrition whatsoever and judging from this diff sees himself as the victim of "vicious barbarians", and I think this serves to illustrate the unrepentant and intractable nature of this now correctly-sanctioned editor. Thank you yet again Coren, for not passing the buck. Jusdafax 20:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with the topic ban, and the severity, I do agree with the Coren in regards to the correct approach to other problems, and have been thinking as much myself. Penyulap ☏ 21:42, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Need clarification

Your statement here is rather confusing, as it's not immediately clear whether blocked IPs were attributed to Iaaasi. - Penwhale | 07:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's because the data is muddled by the use of natting. The named account are all each other and exactly match Nipponese Dog Calvero, and there is some IP activity there that matches Iaaasi well enough, but the link between the two is not iron-clad. That's why I said {{possible}}; odds are both sockmasters are the same, but they could also be meating. — Coren  13:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Theory vs. practice

I should point out that AN/I is pretty much the wrong place to have a "serious discussion" about anything at all. If there are editors who feel that YRC's editing needs to be discussed, the proper venue is a request for comment; not a bonfire at AN/I.

That's the theory, but there is general consensus in the community that user RfC's don't work, produce little results, and waste a great deal of precious time otherwise spent editing. In practice, AN/I is used instead. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that obviously. While RfC's have a great many problems, they pale in comparison to the rash judgements and lynch mobs that almost always occur on the noticeboards. That, and the fact that the few days (or hours!) that an AN/I thread lasts do not provide a sufficient opportunity to seriously discuss a problematic user that has otherwise good contributions. It does well enough for quick intervention against vandals or immediate incidents, but it sucks at ongoing issues. — Coren  18:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they heard the recent ruckus on The Beatles and Jimbo's talkpage from all the way from over at the Brazilian wikipedia, despite that, a RfC failed to launch from the editors talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 19:02, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan

Hi Coren, I'd like to unblock YRC, but want to check to make sure you don't mind. There's been something of a pile-on around him recently -- some of it his fault, some of it not -- and we're now in a situation where one block is leading to the next. It would be good to break that dynamic because he's a very dedicated editor who makes valuable contributions. At times he almost single-handedly keeps the BLP noticeboard running, for example.

He did have a point about Stephen M. Cohen. We would normally not start articles with "X is a British murderer" or "Y is a French blackmailer." If that's what notability rests on, we would write something like "X is a British businessman who was convicted in 2012 of the murder of Y."

YRC shouldn't have reverted so often, so I'm not questioning your block, but I'm thinking that time served would be long enough. SlimVirgin 17:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind, but it's against the advice of Dennis (who has been mentoring YRC for a while); and while YRC seems to feel he has it in for him at the moment, the relationship has been productive for a good while and I'd rather chalk this out to current frustration than anything else.

That said, you've proven your judgement time and time again in the past. If you think you can make an unblock work, go for it. — Coren  18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is just that, my opinion. I will not interfere with the judgement of SlimVirgin in any way. If you feel that you can help him, then please do so using whatever methods you deem appropriate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 19:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks to both of you. I'll unblock him now, and I'll write him a note later about the best way forward. Thanks again, SlimVirgin 19:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)