User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 66

Re:

Scusa ma avevo dimenticato di risponderti (!!), allora noi abbiamo una policy un po' strana, in pratica revdeletiamo tutta la crono col copyviol, ho passato la segnalazione a un'admin che si suole occupare di queste cose. A margine ho un succoso caso per voi arbcosi, come funzia? Anzi, come funzionate? :D --Vituzzu (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Male (ehm, cough). Seriamente, dipende dai casi: se non c'è niente che sia meglio discutere in via privata, puoi usare questo modulo, scrivendo {{subst:arbreq|Nome del caso}} qui – è un template un po' pietoso, perché ti costringe a pubblicare una richiesta ancora incompleta, però questo abbiamo... Ad ogni modo, se ti serve una mano, puoi chiedere ad uno dei nostri fidi cancellieri (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks). Se, al contrario, ci sono ragioni per cui sarebbe meglio evitare di discutere della questione in pubblico (per esempio, si tratta di informazioni coperte dalla privacy policy o è un caso di contatto inappropriato fra un adulto ed un minore) puoi spedirci una mail all'indirizzo arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org (sennò mandala direttamente a me che la giro alla lista).

Per l'altra cosa, la sysoppa in parola, gentilissima, ha già controllato e mi ha fatto sapere che sono gli altri ad aver copiato da noi. Grazie ancora: siete stati rapidissimi. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello|salam|سلام

Hi I'm Persian Wikipedia users. Complain I'm a bureaucracy and a user. They did not respect the rights of others., Please investigate this issue. I could tell you what is my problem? (Translated by Google Translate) ((Note: I'm sorry if I do not speak good English because my native language is Persian))--Boyabed (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As you have already been informed by a fellow arb, unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about it. What happens on the Persian Wikipedia is not within the remit of the English Arbitration Committee. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

He could be back

ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Epennes1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the guy seems clean. Either that or our common friend is enjoying his holidays on a different continent... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On block evasion and rangeblocks

Hi Salvio, I've been playing what seems to be whack-a-mole with a blocked user for several months now and being pretty ignorant of rangeblocks, I wonder if there is any scope for use of them in this situation. The user is Krantmlverma (talk · contribs) who claims to be from Greater Noida (see also Krant M. L. Verma). That user has been indef'd here per WP:CIR and is on a long block at hi-WP, as well as having a very problematic history on Commons and some poor stuff at Wikisource. For all I know, they may have spread themselves even further - SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) used to know a bit about this.

Krant specialises in stuff relating to various Indian freedom fighters, mostly from the 1920s, and has a long history of self-promotion of his books and uploading - here and at Commons - of images with unacceptable provenance. Among my most recent reverts of what I am 99% sure is block evasion are:

• 14.98.89.139 contributions - Tata, Delhi
• 14.98.223.101 contributions - Tata, somewhere in Maharashtra
• 14.98.29.85 contributions - Tata, Delhi
• 14.96.200.209 contributions - Tata, Delhi
• 14.98.56.23 contributions - Tata, Lucknow
• 14.98.246.245 contributions - Tata, Delhi

This list is by no means exhaustive and even in the recent time period there have been instances that are now-deleted uploads. There have also been instances where an upload here or at Commons using one account has almost immediately been followed by a contribution to en-WP that includes the upload and follows the Delhi location/freedom fighter topic pattern. That some of the IPs are outside the Delhi area is no surprise: he is a "senior fellow", although no-one has ever managed to determine what of, and he is known to travel around for his research etc.

Are the Delhi ranges too wide to rangeblock? Is there anything that can be done? I'd be astonished if I have caught them all. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The range you indicated was too wide; removing 14.96.200.209, however, it becomes 14.98.0.0/16, which can indeed be blocked. My problem is that, after running a CU check to see if there would be collateral damage, I'm sorry to report that it would be huge, so I don't feel comfortable imposing a rangeblock right now... So, for the moment, I fear you'll have to keep playing whack-a-mole. If you want, however, I'd be glad to apply my very own "ChronicalUsual" patented anti-socking system (which basically means I semi-protect all the pages he hits until he gets bored). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you are happy to semi-protect then that would be great. There are occasionally other anons who contribute to some of those articles but he is persistent and everyone else can make edit requests on the talk pages. His interests seem primarily to revolve around the Kakori conspiracy, the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association and characters who are connected with those - it could grow to be a lot of pages but perhaps we could start with just the ones that have been fiddled with recently, per the above contribution histories. I'll try to keep an eye on things and let you know what happens. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have semied a bunch of pages for a month. And, yes, if you keep an eye on things that would be most appreciated. And, as usual, it would be even more appreciated if you chose to run for adminship . Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep an eye on those and any related articles that I can spot. As for adminship, well, the same thing was suggested not too long ago (and got some positive "do its" from RegentsPark, Drmies and others) but, honestly, I've upset far too many people with my bluntness - notably, those who frequent DRN. I wouldn't mind helping out at RFPP, with protected edit requests and with routine CSD stuff (pages in userspace, blatant copyvio/adverts etc) but it ain't going to fly at RfA. Even now - 25,000 edits and 70,000 fixes of my own typos etc later - I still sometimes cannot easily tolerate "fools", even though it usually turns out that I was correct in my assessment of them. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

• Op-ed: The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change

• Recent research: Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview

• Traffic report: Bouncing Baby Brouhaha

• WikiProject report: Babel Series: Politics on the Turkish Wikipedia

• News and notes: Gearing up for Wikimania 2013

• Arbitration report: Race and politics case closes

• Featured content: Caterpillars, warblers, and frogs—oh my!

• Discussion report: Defining consensus; VisualEditor default state; expert and layperson terms in article titles

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for guidance again (ANI Infobox)

Hi, sorry to trouble you once more, but I again have a problem understanding the protocols of the arb system. Evidence closed on 31st July. However, since that date, a number of those who, like me, are parties to the arb, have continued posting, in effect, evidence, in the Worskhop section (closes August 7th). If this is permissible, I may wish to add some further evidence details myself. Can you please explain the guidelines here? With thanks,--Smerus (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you as well. I posted evidence there today [1] three days after the deadline! I had a medical procedure on Monday and missed the deadline, meant to email to request permission to post after the deadline but haven't felt well enough, and in the end since evidence is still being posted [2] took a chance. Is that permissible? If not, I'm not bothered if mine is removed. I think this somewhat related to what Smerus is asking. Victoria (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The degree of precision to which are deadlines enforced is something which depends very much on who's the drafting arbitrator; I, for instance, tend to pay attention to them and prefer that parties don't submit any new evidence after the relative phase is over, but most of my colleagues are not that fastidious. Which means that in this case, Smerus, I'd say that, seeing as others have continued posting new evidence on the workshop page and nobody has complained, you can do the same, unless one of the drafters asks you (plural) not to do so. The same goes for you, Victoria: since nobody has complained, so far, there should be no problem. On top of that, considering the reasons for your delay, I don't think anyone would ever object. Should anyone do so, however, do feel free to point them to this edit of mine: you are hereby granted an exemption. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to pull mine. It's become a point of discussion and I'm not in a position health-wise to respond. Thanks anyway. Victoria (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that, but I understand. Also, apologies for rollbacking your edit: I mistakenly hit the button while reading my watchlist. I really hate it when that happens... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, hadn't even noticed. I'll be gone from here for a while. Good luck with the case. Victoria (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Returned blocked user

Back at the end of last year there was a rash of IPs tendentiously editing Serama, leading to you semi-protecting it. A subsequently created account made to avoid semi-protection was subsequently blocked by you for the same reason. The IPs have returned, so can the page be semi-ed again? Regards, CMD (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Good Lord, that guy is persistent!  Semied for a year; next time, it's indefinite. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

• Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case

• Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard

• News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech

• Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess

• Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you figured out

to whom the sock accounts Special:Contributions/Isolde_blanche and Special:Contributions/Geoffrey_Wordwood belong to? They are still in check-user window. There are about 3 possibilities as to the sock master, depending on whether it was a real sock of some editor who previously created that page, a trolling account of someone a harassing the user who deleted the page, or (less likely) a joe job. We can't be certain from the edits alone which of these is true, but I think a check-user can establish that. Do you want me to file a SPI? I think ArbCom would rather have this dealt with more quietly. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the best way to handle these accounts would be quietly, I agree. That said, they belong to Hijiri; seeing as they were already blocked, I didn't touch them, imagining nobody would pay attention to them. They popped up during his original CU check and I asked him about them; he maintained that he wasn't familiar with the username policy, back when he created them, and added there was no intention to impersonate them on his part. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty disturbing because it means Isolde blanche was a joe job created to stir up trouble and potentially get the TBAN'd editor Tristan Noir in hot water for socking. And then Geoffrey Wordwood was basically created to argue ... with himself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 told me once that the user who is harassing him (JoshuSasori) is on the same network as Hijiri. Is that a plausible explanation for the edits of Isolde blanche? Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not a plausible explanation, in my opinion. That account is  Technically indistinguishable. I admit I didn't pay close attention to it, seeing as they were already blocked, and just chalked it up to weirdness (it helped I wasn't aware of Tristan Noir's TBAN). I only wanted to get Hijiri to use one account from now on and to stop the disruption that was caused by the interaction between the other guy (whose name now escapes me, the one who recently retired) and him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, everything SNUHRN has said above is either a bald-faced lie or a blatant violation of AGF. I never said that the user who had reverted me[3] and was on the same IP as me was the same person as JoshuSasori, or that said person was following me. Again, someone else is also clearly on the same network, so to claim that this IP is not shared is a blatant violation of AGF, in that it clearly assumes bad faith. A further violation of AGF is the assumption that the Isolde blanche account was a "joe job" intended to get Tristan noir in trouble. Believe me, if I wanted to get Tristan noir in trouble, I could very easily bait him into violating his IBAN or TBAN (he is still monitoring my edits, after all); but I have not done so. The Isolde blanche and Geoffrey Wordwood accounts were a joke, in a similar tone to how my first alternate account was an obvious parody of Tristan noir's first meatpuppet -- I really wish JoshuSasori hadn't run me off Wikipedia so close to April Fools. Please, SNUHRN, give it a goddamn break: your attempts to blame the victim in all of these cases are beginning to get somewhat sickening, and your going back through the edit histories of numerous accounts (apparently not just my ones) in order to find "evidence" against me (without even checking the context to see that with perhaps one exception I have always been in the right) is beginning to really creep me out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is complicated enough already without joking and creating a bunch of socks/alternate accounts. The whole affair is already is too much like a sewage pond, and muddying the waters even further is, if it is possible in the first place, not helpful. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said a bunch of times that I'm committing myself to one account (even if it means my real-world stalker is gonna contact my office again). But this new stalker has apparently committed himself to driving me off Wikipedia a second time through "legitimate" means. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out that your actions may have been problematic is not stalking; actually, following someone's edits when that person has edited in a problematic manner in the past, to make sure he will not do so again is actually one of the defenses to wikistalking... That said, since blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, I'd let this one slide. But, please be aware that future violations of WP:SOCK, no matter the reason, will lead to sanctions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Umm... why are you even telling me that? Why is everyone suddenly assuming bad faith? I told you about my situation off-wiki, you said you completely understood but I needed to stop editing from more than one account, and so I stopped, and now I am back on my main account. None of my edits in the past (even under my alternate accounts) have been problematic. This user has made at least two completely bogus accusations that I was edit-warring (on Waka (poetry) and on Rape during the liberation of France I was the one trying to engage in reasoned discussion on the talk pages) and seems to have some kind of grudge against me. I already tried to let bygones be bygones, and he appeared to agree, but has continued to harass me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Epiphany

I suggest that what you all want is something like the following:

Wikipedia's child protection policy does not prohibit private contact(s) between individual adults and an unsupervised child (or unsupervised children).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely topic banned from complaining that Demiurge1000 has violated bans on private contacts (unless such contacts are banned by a future version of WP:Child protection).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely topic banned from making any statements that could be taken by a reasonable person as an allegation of pedophilia.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds

My internet access has been very limited lately due to the fact that I'm visiting another country - yours, to be more precise. Thus far I've been to Rome, Monte Cassino (WWII Commonwealth graveyard), the Naples metropolitan area (the city itself + Positano, Salerno, and Pompeii), Assisi, Venice, Verona, Lake Como (including a brief trip to Lugano in Switzerland), and Milan. I'll also be in Pisa and Florence within the next few days, before heading back into Rome for a couple more nights. Overall a lovely country (not unlike my own in many ways), but damn if it isn't hot in the summer! ;-)

Anyways, I guess it goes without saying that I don't have very many opportunities to comment on the Kiefer/Ironholds case at the moment, which I was heavily involved in from start to finish. However, I just noticed that one of the proposed remedies is to ban Ironholds from editing Wikipedia. Since I don't know where else to put this, I figured your talk page would make sense, seeing as you're the most active arbitrator on this particular case.

To say that I find such a measure "excessive" would be an understatement. A desysop is one thing — I disagree with it myself, but I can understand the reasoning behind removing the tools, and it's not like the community can't give them back to him at some point if they see fit. But a site ban? What good will that do for Wikipedia? Ironholds is a highly valued member of our community, and has been for as long as I can remember. By banning him outright, we are in effect telling him that he is no longer of any benefit to us as an editor, and his presence is actually harmful to the project. Can you imagine how humiliating that would be for him as an employee of Wikimedia? Not to mention completely and utterly unexpected; The worst Ironholds would have anticipated was a desysop, not an ouster.

A ban is not something to be taken lightly. Even if it's only expected to be a temporary injunction, the lasting effect of an indefinite ban from Wikipedia extends far beyond its actual duration. A ban leaves a stigma that smears their prior history while serving as the permanent benchmark by which all subsequent contributions are judged. It will always be associated with their activities here. I can name several editors who've returned from a ban, and to this day they struggle in burying that unfortunate period deep within their past once and for all.

Kiefer is a totally different story. He has generated so much drama and ill will over the years that I doubt his forthcoming site ban will come as a surprise to anyone; indeed, it may even be necessary at this point. But for Ironholds, I'd imagine that the off-wiki evidence must be absolutely vile, vicious, and mean-spirited in every sense of the term for such a remedy to be passing. It certainly can't be based on a handful of incidents dating back two whole years and a couple of "off-color" jokes on a public channel. If that is indeed the case, then ArbCom will have set a horrifying precedent where even the best of editors can be banned over minor infractions. Forget merely being offensive, I want a guarantee that Ironholds has actually caused very serious harm to at least one other editor through his actions on IRC. Otherwise, you can rest assured that I will denounce this resolution with more indignation than anything I have ever expressed on this site before. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You have chosen some of the best places to visit (Tuscany and Campania are wonderful regions and don't get me started on the local food...); if you have time or the opportunity, my suggestion would be to also visit Sicily. Or not, a good reason to return... And, yes, during summer Italy is way too hot (I'm currently on holiday in a place where, at night, we need a blanket; I fear the moment I have to go back...). And I've never been to Canada, though I've been willing to visit for a bit now; still haven't had the occasion, though.

Regarding the current arbcom case, well the reason I proposed to ban Ironholds is his history of incivility, although, to be entirely honest, what really sold me were the two logged-out edits (in one of them he writes of another editor "after being shown to be an astounding cunt"). Ok, they happened on a different project, but to log out to attack an opponent is one of the very few things which I consider always unacceptable. The idea is that his behaviour has been highly inappropriate so many times (and, the off-wiki evidence goes to show that there is indeed a long-standing pattern of incivility) that people may reasonably find his approach (and his passive-aggresiveness, when not outright aggressiveness) offputting and problematic, thinking they shouldn't have to put up with a person who merrily talks of punching a hole in a woman's windpipe and then watching her die or of hitting a doll in the likeness of Peter Damian. And I happen to agree that nobody should have to put up with a person who's so cavalier in his attitude towards others...

Then again, right now a more lenient approach is prevailing and he'll be only admonished. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. It goes a long way towards clearing things up. I'm not saying what Ironholds did was good, I just personally don't consider it an offense worthy of a ban in itself. Sicily sounds amazing, and I might just go there during my next excursion into Italy - which of course will be during the autumn season, as I cannot take the Italian summer heat. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for butting in but having just returned home to a more exotic place (Thailand) from Hong Kong - where Oliver was very conspicuous by his absence in spite of clearly announcing his intention to be at at Wikimania, it appears I am too late to comment on the Arbcom case itself which only takes into consideration a fraction of both discussed partys' long established patterns of behaviour. As I understand the rules, in so far as the user name, IP, or real name (if used) can be established, blocks and bans apply to the person and thus to each and every account that can be used to edit the encyclopedia and contribute to discussions. It is indeed within the community's remit as users, admins, and Arbcom members to decide on whose collaboration it wishes to retain or dispense with, and if a remunerated activity is jeopardised by such a decision, it is no concern of the volunteer community however sympathetic it may be towards the eventual loss of an employment. It happens in in real life, so there is no reason for excessive indulgence simply because the movement is a non-profit. Indeed, the number of times Oliver has acted or spoken in an inappropriate manner in his official remunerated capacity have hardly been reported within the scope of the current case. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. (§1.1 Site ban); personal, professional, or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site) (§2.2 Blocking policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's largely academic now, but I'm really on the fence on this one. I mean, we have no authority, for instance, to remove a userright from a staff account (I think), so why should we be allowed to impose a much stronger sanction (i.e. a ban) on one of those accounts? This does indeed create a class of editors who are more protected than others, which is obviously problematic: everyone else can end up banned, whereas Foundation's employees cannot; then again, however, I don't want to interfere that directly in someone's employment. So this is a kind way (I hope) to say that I'd sure welcome input from the community on the issue. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, just letting you know that I put in a RM to restore one of User:Kauffner's 600 or so problematic db6 moves (you self-reverted some yourself in the past) at Talk:Lê Hiển Tông. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Block

Hi, you blocked User:Mylassa2000, and I was wondering what reason you had blocked them for. I am not saying you weren't right, I was just wondering, following a limited interaction with the user. Thanks, Matty.007 13:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I saw the above. Thanks, Matty.007 13:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

• News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches

• In the media: Chinese censorship

• Featured content: Wikipedia takes the cities

• Special report: Jimmy Wales: media favors entertainment over raising public awareness

• Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS

• WikiProject report: For the love of stamps

• Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case closes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Deonis

User:Mylassa2000: Lovely cut-n-paste contributions, Google-translated edit summaries, and responding as a Ukrainian IP when directed to talk. Quack, quack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking, that's only a  Possible match (geolocation is correct, but the UA string is different); however, I have blocked based mainly on the behavioural evidence. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Destroyer1812: word+year username, same editing patterns, though seems to have finally halfway figured out userpage formatting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Destroyer and Mylassa are a  Confirmed match. By the by, after creating I don't know how many different userpages, you'd think he should be starting to understand how they work by now... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk about it

Please show me evidence that Andy has "has displayed an impressive battleground mentality". I fail to see that in recent contributions. Perhaps you can look at the cases where he was recently involved and point out where you observe battleground mentality. - Thank you for your "Disproportionate" regarding me. Losing Andy's help and presence would sadden me disproportionately. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

ps: if you have only time for one instance, please look at this display (the regular suspect Andy not involved) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The most recent example of battleground mentality on Andy's part (that I'm aware of, at least) is this one. Now, Victoria may have been wrong, but the point is that Andy chose to escalate the situation, by making accusations and personal attacks on her. That's not the first time he has done something like that and I'm afraid it won't be the last: it has become a pattern for him. From my standpoint, he appears incapable of discussing an issue with others without resorting to a needlessly belligerent approach. He was already banned twice for the same conduct and those sanctions did nothing to improve his behaviour, for that reason I believe that an indefinite ban is the only real solution...

Regarding the comment you link to, I agree it's highly inappropriate, but, to be entirely honest, I believe that it was borne out of frustration (not with you, but rather with the entire situation) and that removing Andy from the field should lead to a generally more relaxed atmosphere (should that not be enough, someone can always file a request for amendment, after all); and I am read to support an admonishment for its author, if it's proposed, but nothing more than that, frankly. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

To ban Andy is no solution at all, because - as I pointed out in June already - you will still have to deal with me until you ban me also ;) - About escalating: Victoria - whom I respect a lot - repeated that an editor left over "The Pilgrim", while said editor edited afterwards. More polite words are imaginable to describe that discrepancy, but I would not say "battleground mentality" (for me: seeking battle for battle's sake, no?) if someone tries to defend himself against accusations. I'm afraid I would also get excited. - Infoboxes are no problem in 9x % of wiki articles, just in the classical music section. Is that a problem of those who go for site consistency or those who want to keep there special corner? - I miss already enough banned users, it's such an incredible waste of talent and service. Look for "Ban" on top of my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, butting in. But my name was mentioned and some things need to be made clear:

1. The diffs I used clearly showed an editor was upset and discouraged as the header stated. No lie there. And Gerda said the idea [of infoxes] is good enough to die for?[4] (i.e, lose editors for). As we have. Again no lie there.
2. I am tired of being called a liar, or even seeing the insinuation that I am.
3. I apologize for posting evidence late and if the medical discharge papers are required as evidence for the reason, those can easily be scanned and sent in.
4. No one should feel bullied to the point of a., asking for a self block so as not to escalate, and b., for removing evidence from an arb case
5. I've decided to retire permanently. I've not been well, strife makes my condition worse and there is too much strife here.
6. Per this edit summary, [5] I agree that losing editors is a loss, but one has to look at the circumstances under which we lose them. I would like to think my services too have been an asset.

Thanks Salvio for indulging me. Victoria (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Victoria, I miss you also, hope you will feel strong enough some day to return. - Please quote me right: I did not say that an idea (infobox or any idea) is good enough to die for. (I would rather say the opposite: no idea is worthy to die for it.) I said, as you can see in the link: "I believe that a good idea doesn't stop to be a good idea because people died fighting for it or against it." - Your services, Victoria, have made this project much more beautiful and meaningful, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Victoria explains why I think that Andy needs to be banned better than I could. Gerda, it's not a matter of being for or against infoboxes. To be entirely honest, I don't know what to think about them: there are cases where an infobox is a useful addition to an article and others where it's not. For that, I think that the current policy, the one which says that the decision to add or remove an infobox must be made on a case-by-case basis is good and should not be changed. The problem is Andy's approach to disagreement; he tends to show little respect for what others think and to enflame situations. That's a problem and it needs to be addressed.

Also, regarding To ban Andy is no solution at all, because you will still have to deal with me until you ban me also, I think you're being unfair to yourself. You may share Andy's opinion regarding infoboxes, but your approach to others is entirely different. For that, I don't think you need to be restricted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. May I share mine?

1. Andy doesn't "need to be banned". Define "need". I didn't see him do anything in 2013 that I (!) would consider "disruptive". Admitted: my judgement for that seems not generally shared, but I wonder if what he does is measured differently because he has a history. Look again at my list of debated infobox cases, this time with the question what did he do that I did not?
2. I don't necessarily share Andy's opinion on infoboxes, - I arrived at my view myself and am in nobody's "party".
3. As you read, I consider infoboxes simply a tool, a service to the reader, no more. How people can get so excited over them is beyond my understanding. If I had written an article on a book and someone added an infobox, I would say "thank you". Instead, as you know, we had a debate that was labelled disruptive and is remembered a year later. - Is that only Andy's problem?
4. "There are cases where an infobox is a useful addition to an article and others where it's not.", you say. I have still to see a case where an infobox is not useful, - simply supplying a date and location of a subject seems useful to me in any case. Look at my Verdi suggestion, for example. (Note that I didn't and wouldn't say that it is "needed".) - I accept that there are authors who think differently, and if I know I don't bother them. (I make my mistakes in evaluating who would be bothered, but am learning.) I suggest these authors place a hidden notice in their articles "I, the principal author of this article, prefer to leave it without an infobox." (Getting more sarcastic - forgive me - they might add: "Please don't even think of suggesting one on the talk.")
5. You mentioned "fair". The more I think about it, the more "fairness" becomes my issue. If there is evidence that Andy and I do the same things, treat us the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment on Gerda's bit above. Salvio, the thing that brought me in on this was the truly obnoxious behavior that Gerda in particular was subjected to at the WP classical music projects. Smerus and Klenzach in particular (and some others since, as noted in the diffs) were really quite out of line. If we are talking "fairness" then let's hold those two to the same standard of civility and collaboration we hold Andy to, eh? Those two need some sort of sanction and no one is discussing their bullying behavior, failure to assume good faith with Gerda, and their relentless personal attacks (I posted the latest at my comments on the talk page of the PD). I am also very much concerned that a "mob with pitchforks" is after Andy for, basically, an attitude that he exhibited years ago and has since toned down. To the extent he's not been perfect since, really, his behavior has been no worse than most people in the midst of an intense discussion; the community is just a bit more highly sensitized to him. I am concerned that he is being held to a double standard here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, throughout the case you have tried to make infoboxes the issue, apparently trying to get ArbCom to declare they are a good thing and you're still trying to persuade arbs and fellow editors. Arbitration will not deal with that aspect of the case: we deal with the behavioural problems which have occurred during those discussions. One of the reasons why Smerus and Kleinzach are not, currently, being sanctioned is that very little evidence against them was provided and arbs can't make bricks without straw.

Montanabw, yes, there probably is a double standard at play here; however, I believe that it's reasonable and justified. Andy has already been sanctioned multiple times, thereby using up all the leniency an editor is usually afforded. If this was the first time he ever did something inappropriate, I'd probably let him off the hook with, at most, an admonishment, but it's not. When you have been banned in the past, you're expected to always be on your best behaviour. Smerus and Kleinzach, on the other hand, have never, to my knowledge, been sanctioned and, so, it's perfectly normal, in my opinion, that more leniency will be shown towards me. Also, I have very quickly examined the diffs you provide on the PD talk page (I will, of course, do it again, this time examining them in depth) and I see nothing comparable to what Andy has been dishing out, but, as I was saying, I may be missing something. The point is, however, that I'm still convinced that Andy has displayed an impressive battleground mentality and for that he needs to be site banned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Salvio, I am not trying to get Arbcom to declare that infoboxes are a good thing. As WTT pointed out, the were invented to be a good thing. The case was started because of the unbelievable resistance against the newly introduced infoboxes for operas, introduced by a project. The case was turned by some who can't leave their old battles. Show me a diff for Andy "dishing out", and two for "battleground mentality" in 2013, as examples for what you mean by these terms and what I don't understand. I don't want Kleinzach and Smerus to be sanctioned, I am on good terms with Smerus, and I respect the work of Kleinzach, saddened a bit because he asked me to apologize for something I didn't do, so I can't. Did you know that it was Kleinzach who said: "I have no objection per se to boxes for compositions ..."? ... that he initiated infobox orchestra? Infoboxes on orchestras, compositions in general, and operas especially, should not be contentious, - there seems to be a major misunderstanding. Additions of infoboxes in these groups are not bold, and their systematic reverting is the problem I see. - I observe that Arbcom seems not even to see the "desease", - how can "remedies" be found? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I read two debates, to list the typical arguments against infoboxes. In both debates, I found Andy politely dismissing those arguments, saying finally in one: "One always hopes that fellow editors will raise issues with articles in order to improve them, rather than to try to score points in a different argument; perhaps disappointment should be expected. Nonetheless, if there is an error in the article, overlooked by those who have spent so many hours working on it and those who have subsequently reviewed it, it should be fixed sooner, rather than later. That said, if a term has been "employed by significant scholars in the field", then that, not your personal preference, has precedence. regarding your final question, you might like to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)". I love that quality, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Going for peace and reconcialiation under difficult circumstances,

Request

Salvio I see that you're on the list of admins who will give a self-requested block. I'd like a three month block, if you'd be willing? I don't think there's need to take away email or talk page access. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Victoria, I saw you were editing, looked at your contributions, saw that Salvio has health issues, and blocked you. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing to it, Ruhrfisch. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)