Wikipedia

User:Prodego/archive/82

< User:Prodego‎ | archive

May 2010

 
You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 31 hours, for violation of WP:POINT. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As a note, I have unblocked Prodego this block was a blatant abuse of admin tools. James (T C) 00:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I will allow arbcom to handle this, please let me know if I'm needed. Prodego talk 00:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
A Resignation might be needed. I hope you can take this upon yourself rather then go through a full arb case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
On that, I disagree. This would be an entirely non-controversial block if Tan were not an administrator, and I've dedicated myself to treating everyone with the respect that they deserve long ago. It is not just to treat people differently because of their positions, everyone is equal, until their actions prove otherwise. Be that in a positive or negative way. Prodego talk 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You really should be resigning now, you have managed to hound another respected editor off the encyclopaedia. The fact you still have the power really concerns me. Though we all know you don't do this, so I guess it'll be left to the arbs. Jeni (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I certainly did not 'hound' anyone - I made a single block for repeated personal attacks, whereas hounding would be repeatedly joining conversations that another user participates in to harass them. As for my 'power', I'm not sure what that would be. I have no more 'power' than any other editor, although perhaps a bit more experience than some. Prodego talk 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't really necessary to block him was it? From the discussion I have read, a word in his ear would have been plenty IMO. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No block is absolutely necessary, we can always live without them. But this was a long term pattern of abuse for which Tan should know is unacceptable (and he had received warnings for such in the past: [1] [2]). At some point one does have to enforce warnings with blocks. Prodego talk 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is perfect. It is a shame imo to have lost an experienced editor over this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It is, and I am sorry to hear Tan made that decision. Prodego talk 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see....

....Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tanthalas39 unblock. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment at the section above was misthreaded. It does not appear to be directly related to the comment I made above yours; perhaps it needs to be moved for clarity? --Jayron32 14:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The reply was to User:jæs but it was moved down due to edit conflicts. Prodego talk 15:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you perhaps move it there then? It makes it look like you were talking to me directly, and so is a bit confusing. Jaes may not have connected your response to his comments, so it may not be reaching the intended audience. --Jayron32 15:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  Done. Hopefully no one objects. Prodego talk 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Why?

Why unprotect Bird, though it is TFA WP:NOPRO states: "Pages which are already indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism are generally left protected while on the Main Page". TbhotchTalk C. 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if someone wants to improve it, it seems like a good idea to let them. :). Generally the TFA isn't protected. Prodego talk 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
17 hours protected, an IP (perhaps a vandal) say "Is not this the Encyclopaedia which anyone can vandalize?" and you unprotect it though NOPRO has a clause, it's crazy. TbhotchTalk C. 16:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
If someone wants to improve an article, why wouldn't we let them? Prodego talk 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
An article with indefinite semi-protection generally don't need to be improve, but well it's your decision, but please protect it when it is out the Main Page. TbhotchTalk C. 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Because, barring one small edit, every edit made by anonymous IPs since you removed the protection has been vandalism. And I notice that you've been conveniently offline pretty much since you removed the protection, so it hasn't been you who's been reverting that vandalism. (Thanks, by the way, for increasing the tedious work the rest of us get to do.) Can you at least semi-protect it again tomorrow, so we don't have to spend hours for the rest of the week correcting all these great "improvements"? MeegsC | Talk 17:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Current practice is to keep the TFA unprotected while it's on the main page, and reinstate any previous protection afterward. While this may soon not be the case, Prodego is hardly at fault. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My antipathy of WP:NOPRO is hardly a secret and I apologise for bringing the argument here, but that guideline says that article which are indefinitely semi-protected shouldn't be unprotected simply because they're on the Main Page. I understand why you unprotected it and I'm not in the business of apportioning blame, but if an article has suffered from such endemic vandalism that it has to be indefinitely protected, it's probably not a good idea to unprotect it just as it becomes the most visible article on WP. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism takes about 1 second. Improving an article takes far more time, and as such a single good edit is easily worth a few dozen vandal edits. Looking at Bird, it has been protected a long time and based on the very small amount of vandalism (for the TFA) while it was unprotected, the protection should probably be removed. I remember back when semiprotection was 'invented' - the idea always was that it would not be used to prevent editing except when needed, and would always be reevaluated to ensure it is still needed. Its a pity we have moved away from the idea that everyone should equally be able to edit. Prodego talk 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Well, sorry for lashing out at you (If you want to call it that. I was more assumeing bad faith rather than lashing out) I do agree with the de-sysoping of Tan and your initial block was apparently in line with policy (wither I like it or not) sorry for dragging this on longer than it needed to. Hope you forgive that and I'll see you around :) (Likely not though unless you take a sudden intrest in U-boats but hey...)--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's no problem, I can understand how these sorts of 'drama-loaded- situations can raise some heated opinions. While I do strongly assert my block was well within the NPA policy, However, there is plenty of room to criticize if it was the best action possible under the circumstances. I'd be happy to discuss why I choose to take that particular action, if you'd like. Barring that, happy editing! Prodego talk 05:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No thanks. I hate long drawn out discussions like this. I'm through with this huge mess :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to the English Wikipedia

I'm writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation to let you know of some upcoming changes to Wikipedia. On May 13, we will be changing the the default skin on the English Wikipedia to Vector instead of Monobook. This change may affect some gadgets and extensions, so I wanted to let you know as you appear to be the author of/involved with one of the most widely used gadgets on the English Wikipedia. For further details, please check out the post on Village Pump.

Thanks!

Howief (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Abusefilter-private

Removed. -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Deletion of Wikipedia malamanteau controversy

Just FYI, this article was at AfD. I already speedied it for the same reason you did, but the creator came complaining that the article didn't technically meet the speedy deletion criteria (it had an attempted claim to notability, albeit a bad one, and unreliable sources is not in of itself a criteria for speedy deletion). He was technically right—I had been IARing to delete it since it was so obvious what the consensus would be—so I restored it and figured it wouldn't hurt to let the AfD run its course (most likely, within a few hours it could be SNOW deleted anyway). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am the original author of the Wikipedia malamanteau controversy article. After it was speedily deleted, I addressed the issue with the admin who deleted it (as seen above), who admitted that it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and thus, gave me permission to rewrite the article. I have rewritten, and added a considerably amount of information to the article, and intended to recreate the article, however, the article is now protected, and I can not post the new version.

Further, what justification do you have for creation protecting the address? I have yet to resubmit the article once, thus, the use of creation protection seems a bit premature and draconian.

Thanks, 8bit (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While the article you wrote is quite well written, this just isn't a topic that an encyclopedia covers - see Wikipedia:Notability (events). The "Malamanteau" article is going to meet the same fate, although it will take longer and more people will waste their time on that one. The AFD wouldn't have kept the article for the same reason I deleted it - the article doesn't assert the notability of the "Wikipedia malamanteau controversy", nor does it cite any sources. As for why I protected it, mostly to avoid it becoming another place for Malamanteau article creation / discussion. That should be kept to their own, soon to be deleted pages. Prodego talk 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I cited several sources, and there are already several pages like this one in Wikipedia. This article doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and by preventing it from entering AfD you are (most likely with good intentions) abusing your administrative powers. Further, your justification for protection is borderline and completely preemptive. Prior to your protection there was no justification for said protection, and the preemptive justification is that of censoring potential discussion regarding the content and legitamcy of the article or related articles, which, even when not done preemptively, is arguably abusive. 8bit (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Note how that article has sources such as articles in the New York Times, BBC News, or the USA Today. You can use WP:DRV if you'd like the deletion of Wikipedia malamanteau controversy reviewed. Prodego talk 20:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind that the article was deleted, even if it was a violation of policy, I just want you to unprotect the page so that I can submit my altered version of the article. 8bit (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think its possible to write an article on this topic that would meet the inclusion criteria - but if you could put what you've written somewhere in your userspace I'd consider it. Alternately, you can request a third party unprotect at WP:RFPP, which I wouldn't object to. Prodego talk 01:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism block

Hi Prodego, FYI. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Prodego talk 22:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was on my way to indef and got a block conflict with you, so I really should have checked with you first before applying the indef. My apologies for not doing that. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really in a position to complain about people arbitrarily undoing my actions, given that the vast majority of what I do is arbitrarily undoing people's actions ;). You should always feel free to undo anything I do (unless of course its something hugely controversial, in which case, best to not) Prodego talk 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While you're getting rid of stuff...

...would you mind closing this little snowstorm: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You're either with us or against us? Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

...and thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re the VP

I guess I should have worded my comment differently. I meant that it's something that is able to be reverted if everybody really hates it and the foundation agrees. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's not true either, Wiki.png no longer controls the logo, its at commons:File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.png now. (and uploading a local version would not change the logo. Only commons admins can change enwiki's logo. (barring CSS hacks) Prodego talk 16:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to get it moved back - I'd rather enwiki control enwiki's logo. I believe they are going to do it once they finish updating the logos everywhere. Prodego talk 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hi Prodego,

You likely don't know this, but I learned how to to put my userpage together when I first got started, by studying the code on yours. Anyway, I do some recent changes patrolling from time to time, and I'd be able to do it faster if I had rollback rights, and you're listed as an administrator willing to consider granting said rights, so I thought I'd ask. Man that last sentence had too many conjunctions! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No evidence

Have you looked at the users userpage here and looked at the utbe account? A blind person can see it is the same editor. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, but there is nothing preventing someone from taking the images from that userpage, putting them together in to an attack montage, and then uploading it to youtube under a username similar to that of whom they are trying to attack. Prodego talk 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes your right, it looks like its me that is blind. I have asked him and he says sites are being created in him name, so , you did the right thing. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Block

Dude I thought you unblocked me man but the block ran out all by itself! :) BerndGalama (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This user is now blocked indefinitely for block evasion. If a user complains of earlier blocks (indef, so still active), he should post an unblock request, not start with a brandnew account. Helping a user in doing this is not what one would expect from an admin. Fram (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I've unblocked BerndGalama. You are absolutely not to block him again without speaking to me. If a user requests an unblock request, saying they want to edit constructively, we assume good faith and give them a second chance. The user informed me he no longer has the password to his old account, and so long as he makes good edits, WP:CLEANSTART applies. I left a note on the talk page of the account he informed me was his old account, User:Mrlob. Prodego talk 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Why did you unblock a sock of an indeffed blocked editor? He has plenty of old accounts, has he forgotten the password to all of them? As I said, you should really, really reread policies before taking any more actions (not only related to this, but any admin actions at all), since you don't even apply WP:CLEANSTART correctly: "A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account". Fram (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
An indef block which I would have removed, if he had still had the password to his old account. So you can consider the old block 'lifted'. Worst case is he gets blocked again, best case he edits constructively. There really is nothing to lose. Prodego talk 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Fram, I think. It doesn't look like cleanstart would apply, since that's for users with no active blocks or bans. Also not loving the "You are absolutely not to block him again without speaking to me." Please don't issue commands (to anyone who hasn't done anything to deserve it, but especially to a fellow administrator). Equazcion (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Equazcion. Here's my reply to Prodego I posted on my own talk page (I'll restirct this discussion to this page from now on). That's a novel appraoch of cleanstart, unblock the old account (just one of them though, not all of them), and then claim that there are no active blocks... AGF is all very nice, but not when an account has socked and vandalized over and over again. Have you seen our blocking policy: "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." Furthermore, you indicated that he contacted you complaining about the blocks I made. This is not the behaviour of someone wanting to improve their act, that is the behaviour of womeone who just wants to continue stirring up trouble. Fram (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

After speaking to someone and granting them an unblock request it looks absolutely terrible to reblock nearly immediately, particularly given that I explicitly informed Fram of the unblock (via email) when I made it. Given that the unblock request was to remove the block, he can edit under the new account, and not only that, but I did leave a note on the talk page of his old account linking to the new one. So long as he makes good edits, he is a net positive to the project, worst case is that he gets blocked again, which is how things were to begin with. There is no 'lose' option here. Prodego talk 15:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You informed me after the fact. You did not indicate on the new page that he is the same as a multi-indef-blocked old sockpuppeteer, thereby making the link to his old accounts nearly invisible (e.g. because I have many of his later accounts on my watchlist, but not the MrLob one, so I didn't notice this minimal indicator you made). The lose option is that an editor will be encouraged to go around emailing admins to get new chances, instead of using on-wiki unblock mechanisms, and that we will lose time again checking all his edits (of his 7 edits, four have already been reverted, none by me). His previous accounts were known of rasing false accusations, creating sneaky vandalism, and being a terrible waste of time for everyone involved. Fram (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
His request was either via the unblock-en-l mailing list or the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel (I don't recall which) - both of which are acceptable unblock venues that are linked from on Mediawiki:Blockedtext. Given that I told you I will be watching his edits, the only time that could possibly be wasted is my own. And I'm more than willing to give up some small amount of my time to have to reblock an editor than to have someone would could be editing productively be unable to. Prodego talk 15:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Everyone else who may have to deal with the same old problems might not be as willing as you are. This "no-lose" scenario you describe could be said to apply to nearly anyone; "worst case we block him again"... well, of course. But an indef means that consensus was that he had used up all his chances. Unbans should be brought up at ANI, AFAIK. Equazcion (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already bettered myself. I was allowed to return to the Dutch wikipedia where I have made several articles and hundreds of good edits since my return. I was given a second chance her also and I gladly took it. I am no longer a sock; I am a new user with a new account - a fresh new start. BerndGalama (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Prodego, don't remove my comments from someone else's user talk page[3] again, please. This time, it's not a policy but a guideline, WP:TALK, you were violating: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Your removal did not meet any of the listed exceptions. Fram (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

RfA thanks

  Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Police

Hell there. I would like to protest your revision on the above article, given that both CS/PAVA spray and TASER are legally classed as firearms in law - hence my edit. Do you still feel that your revision should stand? SGGH ping! 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well:
  • Wikipedia: "A firearm is a device which projects either single or multiple projectiles at high velocity through a controlled explosion."
  • Wiktionary: "A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile."
  • Dictionary.com: "a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder."
  • Merriam-Webster: "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms"
  • Britannica: "weapon consisting essentially of a metal tube from which a missile or projectile is shot by the force of exploding gunpowder or some other propellant."
If tasers, etc are classified as firearms, it would be on a technicality, it clearly doesn't meet the definitions of "firearm" that are listed above. I think it makes more sense to use "firearm" consistently with the definitions above, rather than using some technical adaptation to allow stricter regulation. Prodego talk 18:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems fair. SGGH ping! 13:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno

See my ? for you are Xeno's RFB. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/82&oldid=1145851177"