User talk:Betacommand/Sandbox 4/2
Inappropriate block[edit]
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hi. I made some minor edits to 7-Eleven and so have been watching it regularly on my watchlist. Recently I noticed that User:Duhman0009 complained of someone removing a piece of trivia from the article in his edit summary when he restored it. This trivia was promptly re-removed by User:Deiz with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 181250194 by Jnelson09; rm minor unreferenced trivia." [1] This raised some interesting questions in my mind, as it appeared to me that the other trivia in the section was also "minor" and is also mostly unreferenced; in addition, it seemed to me that trivia saying a dialogue happened in a movie is inherently referenced.
Deiz then removed it, claiming violation of verifiability policies, and Duhman009 restored it claiming a "POV" edit by Deiz. I was then surprised to see a revert by Deiz with the edit summary that Duhman009 was blocked. It seemed to me, given my comments above, that Deiz was on pretty shaky ground. I then checked their talk pages and noted that immediately after the removal by Deitz above, he left a message on Duhman009's talk page, stating "If you don't want your contributions deleted then don't add useless unsourced trivia to WP. Pretty simple." [2] That seems like a rude, unhelpful message to leave on a newbie's talk. Also, Duhman's comments on Deitz's talk [3] seem to be in good faith, and he does make some good points (which I mentioned above).
Basically I'm writing this because I was shocked to see Deiz was even an admin. This seems like an extremely immature exchange and overreaction. I don't know if this is the appropriate place or what ought to be done (as it is only a 24 hour block), but I think it's important not to leave some kind of permanent black mark on Duhman009's record for actions and comments which I think are perfectly understandable. --C S (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh don't worry about me, I'm actually thinking of framing this as a fine example of Power Abusage :)Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without delving in the details of the edits (something which is, actually, not that germane), what you describe is edit warring; the repeated insertion (or removal) of the same information without trying to achieve consensus on the article talk page. A short block is a common measure to nip that sort of behavior in the bud (and, indeed, is supposed to be automatic after the third revert). It's usually considered bad form for an administrator to block someone for edit warring when directly involved in the same edits— but not necessarily inappropriate. Have you expressed your concerns to the administrator himself? (For instance, by leaving a polite inquiry on their talk page). — Coren (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Coren, the IP I used to type yesterday (128.121.126.103) was not mine, it's one of the many proxy servers that has not been banned from Wikipedia, you might want to add it to the list :) Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Block seems a bit long and would have been best enforced by somebody not involved.
- As to the content, I believe the word you are looking for is "crap" :) --kingboyk (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire section was crap, I just figured, might as well add to the pile :P Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, he's actually an admin, wow, didn't even noticed nor would I ever have guessed by his attitude. Just goes to show you that 95% of people with any sort of power shouldn't have any because he or she will abuse it. Any way, all of my points were valid: He was using his PPOV to determine what should and shouldn't be on the page, he did not give a proper reason why it was removed, the content was more or less the same as the rest, the entire section was un-sourced and now I learned that there was a conflict of interest. I'm starting to think that I would make a better admin or mod (not that I would want to :P). I personally see this as a victory since the entire section was removed, it's fair justice. Thanks for the support guys. --Duhman0009 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.121.126.103 (talk) [reply]
- (ec)While Deiz probably should not have issued the block (as he was involved in the dispute), Duhman's complete lack of civility costs him any possible sympathy. Twenty-four hours may be a bit long, but I do not disagree with the block here. faithless (speak) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first comment I left was pretty much neutral and straight to the point, but after his harsh reply, I started talking to his level of rudeness. I don't see why I should stay civil when someone else (especially someone with the title of admin) can't do the same. --Duhman0009 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.121.126.103 (talk) [reply]
- Deiz didn't act perfectly here; specifically this comment was a bit out of line, I think. But your reaction overshadows his slight rudeness. Just because someone is rude to you is no reason to stoop to their level. And besides, as far as the original content dispute goes, Deiz was right; it was an incredibly minor piece of trivia which was completely irrelevant to the article. It appears that now the entire section has been removed (rightly, I would say). You seem to have been acting in good faith, so I would just suggest to take this as a learning experience and to remember to remain civil at all times. If someone is uncivil to you, there are ways to deal with it. Answering incivility with incivility will often result in a block. Cheers, faithless (speak) 16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm a big believer of "an eye for an eye", but putting that aside, I doubt that anyone would take any action against and admin who's being rude. Anyway, I think you're dancing around the main issue here, which is that the removal of the content was never about something "useless" or "unsourced", it was about Deiz not wanting anyone to defy his authority. As I stated, the entire "Pop-Culture" section was technically irrelevant, unsourced and I'm sure that Deiz is neither dumb or blind, so he must have known that as well. If he truly believed in the reasons he told me (that my post was irrelevant and unsourced), he would have removed the entire section like Kingboyk did. How can you justify Deiz's action if not tyranny? Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deiz didn't act perfectly here; specifically this comment was a bit out of line, I think. But your reaction overshadows his slight rudeness. Just because someone is rude to you is no reason to stoop to their level. And besides, as far as the original content dispute goes, Deiz was right; it was an incredibly minor piece of trivia which was completely irrelevant to the article. It appears that now the entire section has been removed (rightly, I would say). You seem to have been acting in good faith, so I would just suggest to take this as a learning experience and to remember to remain civil at all times. If someone is uncivil to you, there are ways to deal with it. Answering incivility with incivility will often result in a block. Cheers, faithless (speak) 16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first comment I left was pretty much neutral and straight to the point, but after his harsh reply, I started talking to his level of rudeness. I don't see why I should stay civil when someone else (especially someone with the title of admin) can't do the same. --Duhman0009 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.121.126.103 (talk) [reply]
- I wouldnt exactly say "Deiz probably should not have issued the block (as he was involved in the dispute)," -- I'd say "Deiz certainly absolutely should not have issued the block... " regardless of the bad behavior of the other party. This is about as basic as its gets--any of the rest of us thousand active admins he mighthave asked would have looked at the situation & done it. DGG (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't make this topic any longer than it already is. Everything I just told to faithless applies here as well, but I will add something else. There are rules on Wikipedia and they apply for everyone, including mods and admins. Also, like in real life, some rules and crimes have higher importance than others. Personally, I see myself right now as a shoplifter Vs a crooked cop.Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a question. Has there been a longer term pattern of bullying? Linkboyz (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with much of what has been said above. I could have passed this on, but given the clear, repeated violation of policy after warnings and Duhman "daring" me to call an admin to take action against him - when he had clearly not taken the time to check whether the editor he was shouting at was an admin himself - a 24hr block seemed entirely reasonable. I have been involved in cleaning up / editing this article in the past, but very little recently, and certainly have no conflict of interest with the subject of the article. The 7-11s here don't even sell Slurpees :( Nice to see Linkboyz still has it in for me for no apparent reason. If the unsourced trivia has been removed entirely, I see a victory for WP:V, not for an incivil editor who repeatedly added unsourced trivia. If any offence was taken at my comments (which I admit were direct but imo entirely accurate and certainly not unhelpful) then I humbly apologize, but if Duhman has learned a few things about policy and generally how to go about communicating and editing on Wikipedia (sadly not clear from some of the comments above regarding POV when the issue was verifiability, but we can hope) then I'm happy with how things transpired. Deiz talk 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for you my friend, the only thing I can say for your brilliant acting right there is this: http://i8.tinypic.com/8a055b7.gif Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It strikes me as grossly inappropriate to block someone for "edit warring" when (a) you're the other primary party in the dispute, and (b) you've made more reverts than they have. If the block is really that appropriate, it shouldn't be a problem to get it implemented by a neutral admin who doesn't have a blatant conflict of interest. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is this it, is this the end of the discussion? Should I take it that when an admin gets in s scandal, no one talks about it? Duhman0009 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So what do you want? A public hanging? The block was inappropriate, there seems to be an agreement that it was inappropriate, and I doubt Deiz will repeat such an action. We don't punish people, so I'm not sure what you're looking for. - auburnpilot talk 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated multiple times, it's not about the blocking, it's about power abusage (please read my previous statements as this topic is large enough as it is). Also, I don't know about you, but banning and blocking people sure sounds like punishments to me. Did you mean "we don't punish admins"? Duhman0009 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I did not mean "we don't punish admin" and if you think blocks are placed as punishment, I suggest you reread our blocking policy. Blocks and bans are only placed to prevent further disruption/damage to the project. They should never be placed in a punitive manner. I do not believe Deiz intentionally abused the blocking function, but it was a poor decision. There's really just nothing more to it (and nothing more than needs to be done). - auburnpilot talk 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, that's what the juridical system says when they send someone to jail (replace project with society). Jokes aside, I still think that people here are avoiding the main topic on purpose here. I guess I have no choice but to talk about it one more time and expend this topic. When removing my post, Deiz kept stating that my content was unsourced and useless when in fact, the entire Pop-Culture section of 7-Eleven was unsourced and useless. So again, what justifies Deiz actions of removing my content and stating that it was unsourced and useless when it was clear as day that the entire section was unsourced and useless? You don't get to be an admin by being blind or stupid, so I'm 100% that Deiz knew that, so that leaves us only with one possibility, tyranny. Duhman0009 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I did not mean "we don't punish admin" and if you think blocks are placed as punishment, I suggest you reread our blocking policy. Blocks and bans are only placed to prevent further disruption/damage to the project. They should never be placed in a punitive manner. I do not believe Deiz intentionally abused the blocking function, but it was a poor decision. There's really just nothing more to it (and nothing more than needs to be done). - auburnpilot talk 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated multiple times, it's not about the blocking, it's about power abusage (please read my previous statements as this topic is large enough as it is). Also, I don't know about you, but banning and blocking people sure sounds like punishments to me. Did you mean "we don't punish admins"? Duhman0009 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
OK, Now I Really do Smell a Conspiracy[edit]
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
At first, I was thinking that I wasn't describing the situation clearly, but now I know that people are purposely avoiding the main topic here that an admin removed my content in the 7-Eleven out tyranny and not for the good of Wikipedia. Deiz did not want anyone defying his authority and now, the topic got archived because I was revealing the truth? Oh and please, leave my 24h blocking out of this, I really don't care about that, I made it clear multiple times. Duhman0009 (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wether he removes all the trivia or just part of it is not part of some conspiracy, plot or plan. Its an editorial decision that he made, and that someone else can un-make, discuss or revert. This is not an issue for this board, it does not require admin intervention. Take up the issue on the articles talkpage. ViridaeTalk 04:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Odd block problem[edit]
Resolvedseems to be cleared. Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please could someone help User:Nick mallory? He is having block problems based on the use of a web accelerator - which he has disabled, but he is still having problems. He is a good contributor, but is (I think understandably) getting rather upset by it. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Duncan and to all those who helped out. Nick mallory (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]