User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

"Get"? We are here to write an encyclopedia verifiable to reliable sources. You used a personal website whose reliability was not clearly established, I queried, it was changed to a reliable source. That's what reviews are for ... problem solved. I am still surprised at how often similar happens at DYK, but I guess I shouldn't be ... maybe that's what I should "get"? Anyway, I'm glad it's fixed (have you doublechecked that any other articles you may have submitted to DYK haven't also used that website?) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you truly are missing it here, but I think it's best to drop the thing because what you think I was talking about isn't what I was talking about at all. Karma will take care of the rest.PumpkinSky talk 23:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation should go into the archives of Truly Random and Bizarre Things That Are Posted To My Talk Page. I worry about you, Rlevse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hansi Brand DYK? Nomination

Hello,

I have just responded to your comments here--Template:Did you know nominations/Hansi Brand--and addressed all of the concerns that you had in regards to this DYK? nomination. Please respond back to me whenever you are able to. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Futurist ... I'm sorry I didn't get back to this, but I see that all was resolved. Thanks for the quick and amicable resolution! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pisco Sour

Dear Sandy,
I hope all is well. Pardon the abrupt question, but could you please provide an update on your views at the Pisco Sour FAC?
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, down at the mill

This comment, and others, should ring alarm bells: suggestions for improvement are not permitted at DYK. Tony (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, can you please try to be fair? You started a thread about a valid issue in a deliberately provocative way, and you managed to get PumpkinSky to bite back. You and Sandy are correct that DYK has issues but your approach is counter-productive. Please, can we work together on addressing issues of reviewing with more subtly than you are using at present? Sandy, sorry to jump in on your page but I want to try to calm things down and we don't need accusations of canvassing to add to the heat at present. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem, this seems to be a very biassed angle. First, the only way to get the entrenched and self-satisfied mentality at DYK to act systemically is to make dynamic criticisms and proposals. That is what I did, and it's what I've done in the past. Second, I did not "manage to get" anyone to "bite back": PumpkinSky has to take responsibility for her/his own comments; I was taken aback to be called a "pompous ass", but a simple apology would have been enough (none has been forthcoming, which underlines the idiocy of admins' blocking practices). It wasn't a good block, and had I been awake I'd have been among those asking for it to be rescinded.

We're still dealing with intransigence at DYK, and a practice of group bullying of anyone who dares to criticise. Many editors in the community are dissatisfied with the situation. Tony (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I am a DYK contributor and consider myself a member of that project, so I am part of the entrenched self-satisfied mentality (as you put it) yet I have agreed with some of your points, recently posted criticisms of the "crime in ..." articles, objected to the hook that described the North Korean famine as people getting hungry, and you are welcome to look my reviews and comments (links available on request) and articles and critique my work - I welcome constructive feedback. I find your "dynamic criticisms" counter-productive because your valid points are obscured by your chosen mode of delivery. As for PumpkinSky, you were provocative and he bit back. He has to take responsibilty for his comments as you have to take responsibility for your provocation. I'm glad you agree that the block was bad, perhaps you might approach PumpkinSky directly and offer an apology for your provocation, maybe he'll offer one for his inappropriate comment. You might have noticed that my comments at WT:DYK do indicate that his response was not acceptable.

Many editors are dissatisfied with DYK, a point I made to PumpkinSky, but DYK is not the only place where intransigence is found on-wiki and in none of those places are provocative comments helpful in producing progress, in my opinion. I remember offering an unpopular perspective at FA and being jumped on - it is an unpleasant experience, and it leads nowhere productive. Bullying is not acceptable, I agree, but deliberately offering bullys a target by being provocative is not a wise response. Take care. EdChem (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offer an apology to PS? For what? Being bullied and insulted by him? You're kidding. No wonder no one has ever succeeded in getting reform at DYK: it's a very effective strategy. Tony (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what? Ed's already given you the answer. I agree with the essence of Edchem's comments here: although some of the points you're making need to be made, how you try to get them across is not winning you any support. i.e. "Hall of Lame" vs. "Uninteresting hooks" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being so late to weigh in here ... I just haven't had the editing time to keep up as I used to, and what has gone on wrt Rlevse/PumpkinSky is so far over the top that I'd rather keep my head in the sand and not contemplate how far Wikipedia has degenerated. That a former arb can visit a grudge on an admin at ArbCom after showing an ongoing escalation of bizarre and disruptive behaviors for a number of months is ... a new low. Anyhow, back on topic:

Tony, reform at DYK will not be possible until a few entrenched regulars there allow it. In the meantime, alienating the other good editors there who do see the problems won't help. I am less concerned about how interesting hooks are than I am that the basic pillars of the Project are not even upheld there because of QPQ reviewing. DYK had serious copyvio issues in the past-- addressed mostly by only two editors (Nikkimaria and Bluemoonset) in spite of interference from a few ongoing regulars. Those copyvio issues seem to have somewhat abated, but there are still serious problems with 1) lack of understanding of reliable sources, which is a crit. at DYK and for all articles, 2) padding of articles with off-topic trivia so that length crit. can be met, and 3) truly poor prose. DYK trains new editors to edit poorly. I really don't care how dull or interesting hooks are: I care that DYK policies and practices encourage poor editing that turns out poor editors in droves. We've seen articles that don't even meet notability pass DYK review on blog sources. We find articles padded up with completely irrelevant content so that editors can gain DYK points at WIKICUP. I could go on ... QPQ reviewing doesn't work, and the volume at DYK is too high for qualified reviewers to keep up. I can go to DYK any day, spend less than an hour, and found scores of deficient articles, and editors, indeed former arbs, who don't know what a reliable source is, passing other DYKs that don't use reliable sources, and training legions of new editors in bad editing practices.

There are a few editors these days active at DYK who "get it"; how about trying to work with them on DYK reform? There are enough entrenched regulars who will turn any sort of criticism against you-- this is a technique my old buddy Chavez mastered, and it works at DYK. How about instead trying to work with good editors like EdChem on reform? Or even Crisco, whose early editing alarmed me but is now doing very good work ... in the meantime, admins will climb over themselves to excuse egregious and escalating behavior from a former arb, even though the current arbs seem to get it. Mob rule is the Wikipedia way ... ignore that and focus again on how to improve content and editing practices for the legions of new editors who are being led astray by faulty QPQ reviewing at DYK. Forget about interesting hooks ... faulty sourcing and poor writing and udue weight and BLP vios and MEDRS breaches are bigger concerns for me than how interesting or not a hook is. DYK has the opportunity to train new editors correctly; instead, they are following suit of experienced editors who don't know what a reliable source is. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, as usual, from you, this is thoughtful, interesting and very useful: thank you. The only thing I don't agree about is the importance of the interest factor for hooks (and a related issue, the swamping of hooks with secondary links to articles that haven't been checked for policy and guideline compliance, let alone prose quality—and seemingly against the insterests of the DYK that is linked). If hooks are the mode of presentation on the main page, they need to be good as well. Two sides to the coin. Tony (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony that the quality of the hook is vital. Otherwise we might as well have some bot scrape a random sentence off a random article that has grown per the criteria. Like FA and FP are supposed to be our best work, this area is supposed to fascinate and entice readers with our most interesting new material. I say this though as someone who rarely reads the main page and never reads DYK. Life is to short to waste time reading that someone I've never heard of did something I don't care about. Colin°^Talk 07:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll grant to both of you that, in a perfect world, the interest factor is as important as everything else I've outlined ... but we are so far from a perfect world at DYK and there is so much that needs attention ! DYK has the opportunity to train editors early on and get articles off on the right foot ... instead, procedures and practices (there and at WIKICUP) encourage the churning out of deficient articles to gain perceived prizes. And what happens to the "interest factor" is the same as what happens to prose and sourcing ... editors learn, indeed are encouraged by reviewers, to pad up their articles so that expansion/length is met, and there is often no regard for whether that padding is a) based on reliable sources, b) relevant to the article, or c) well written. A similar thing happens when we demand interesting hooks ... that quickly becomes scandalously ridiculous tabloid style hooks, often with BLP issues or MEDRS issues or plainly inaccurate hooks because non-reliable sources are used. We have admins whose own DYK hooks are inaccurate, and are passed, based on blog sources. Recently. SO ... yes, interesting hooks might be one part of training new and experienced editors and encouraging responsible and policy-compliant editing, but there's a huge iceberg under that tip at DYK that is not being addressed because the few qualified reviewers who are active there cannot keep up with the volume, and we have several entrenched DYK regulars who either don't care about copyvio and reliable sources or simply and still after many years of editing do not even understand core policies. There is a need to address the whole picture-- not just "lame hooks"-- and the whole picture cannot be corrected unless you work with the few clueful regulars there to deal with the several who lack clue, impose their will, and routinely place deficient articles on the mainpage. DYK will never be eliminated (it probably should be because it is responsible for so much truly bad content that will never be cleaned up), so can we at least work to improve reviewing there ? A slowdown in volume would help, along with an elimination of QPQ so that knowledgeable reviewers can assure our mainpage is being used responsibly. But part of that is dealing with the experienced "leaders" at DYK who don't know and won't enforce policy and good editing practice ... work with the few who do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I live in Australia: you'd be depressed if you allowed the immature, anti-intellectual environment of this pretentious little country to erode your sense of striving for perfection. Luckily, I don't give in easily. I suppose the rationale for my recent concentration on hooks at DYK is that they're at the heart of its pipeline straight onto the main page, no doubt designed as a convenient selling point without realising ... ahem ... that hooks involve a particular skill-set per se. I find the grammar and theming of hooks an interesting challenge, and DYK's almost total disregard of the art of the hook dismays me—hooks are often treated like a humdrum afterthought. This is, if you like, representative of the whole approach to DYKs—the quick and easy adrenalin rush of main-page exposure (not quite your words, but similar). Intermittently revisiting the forum to point out deficiencies in specific aspects of DYK is a helpful strategy in the absence of engineering a complete redesign (which I'm not capable of doing). If people are continually made aware of the need to professionalise on our main page, it makes it easier to propose smaller reforms. At the top of the list must surely be QPQ and ×5, which urgently need to be binned as hair-brained ideas that are poisoning the process. Tony (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But ... but ... there is "almost total disregard" for almost ... everything that is policy ... at DYK! Keep revisiting to point out deficiencies ... but be aware that with at least two entrenched regulars who have leadership positions there and who disregard or misunderstand important Wikipedia and DYK policy, your approach has to be one that at least endears you to the rest of the folks there. Some of them have begun to listen ... at least copyvio has been reduced. Maybe responsible editing will become more of the norm there as other editors begin to "hear"; on my recent reviewing at DYK, I was attacked by the usual folks (of course, no admins took them on ... likely for fear they'd be hauled off to ArbCom if they did), but I received very warm and helpful and productive feedback from other new editors. I reached them, and they learned ... and one of them even commented on the surprisingly rude feedback I got back from some of our regular admins there. There is hope. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ is a potential disaster, and that x5 thing is ridiculous for anything but single-sentence stubs. For instance, Dennis Brown and I recently took the Sunbeam Tiger from a rather ordinary little start article to FA, basically rewriting everything, and even now it's barely four times bigger than it was at the beginning of the process. Added to which, you've got to do your fivefold expansion in only a few days. Completely ridiculous. Eric Corbett 14:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "install our personal preference du jour"

It seems to be practically unstoppable when done from a highly dynamic IP from a large range. Special:Random + (unauthorized) script/bot = "somebody stop me!" Some such changes will get reverted by whoever happens to watch a particular page and feel strongly enough to revert, but most will go through. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be practically unstoppable period in today's Wikipedia environment, where fewer and fewer admins are willing to do ... anything ... at ... all ... about anything that matters ... those who can, write content ... those who can't, argue at ANI or RFAR. I'm reminded of baboons pounding their chests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus FA

Hi Sandy, I was wondering if you would have a quick look at the Tyrannosaurus article and see if it looks to you to meet current FA standards? I am wondering whether to initiate a discussion on it with a view towards it needing an FA review as the text to me seems repetitive, handling of units hap-hazard and inconsistent, significant overlinking, and needing some reorganisation. I would welcome any thoughts you may have, and to be clear I am not asking that you take on the job, I just seek the view of an experienced FA contributor. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EdChem ... I'm sorry I have been of so little use in responding to your requests for help lately ! I've been quite busy in real life, so haven't had the time for the sustained commitment needed to review at the FA level, although I can occasionally dip in to DYK for a quick source review. (Will respond to Tony's DYK issue as soon as I can-- I'm more concerned about sourcing, padding, and copyvio issues than how interesting hooks are at DYK-- I think interesting hooks might be a concern if the basic pillars of Wikipedia were being met, and I'm concerned that DYK is still a place where not even basic pillars that apply to all articles are upheld.)

When I was new to Wikipedia, dinosaur articles were all the rage; as often happens, it seems that many of the editors who maintained those articles have moved on. At a quick glance, I can see numerous problems (as you outlined, including uncited text) with the article, but those problems aren't as bad as many older FAs that typically appear at WP:FAR. It's not surprising that a high-profile topic like tyrannosaurus would deteriorate after its principle editors move on.

Instructions at FAR ask that editors post to the talk page before initiating a review, in hopes that some interested editor will improve the article and remove the need for FAR. You cannot go wrong by listing some of the obvious issues on talk to see if anyone will surface to work on the article. If no one surfaces in say a month, I agree that the article probably needs to go to FAR. But there are so many FAs in so much worse shape ... I digress :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane Library Sign-up

Have you seen Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Free_Research_Accounts_from_Leading_Medical_Publisher._Come_and_Sign_up.21? --SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for pointing me to that ... if that comes through, it will be immensely helpful to me ... much more so than HighBeam or Jstor, which have turned out to be not very useful for medical editing, although quite useful in other topic areas. I appreciate the pointer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct link: Wikipedia:Cochrane. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never

Hi Sandy - thanks for your email way back when. I've finally gotten around to responding via email - I'm sorry it took me so long. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I responded. I think. Quite busy here ! Well, if I forgot to respond, it's the thought that counts ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Hi, I saw you on the administrators' noticeboard. Could you please move Wikipedia:Davy Chou to Davy Chou. As you can see, I made a mistake while moving the page from my user space to article space. Thanks. Anilakeo (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bencherlite! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia 3RR

With respect, I disagree with your statements about my edits on the schizophrenia page. I made significant revisions to this latest version and used the Huntington's disease and Parkinson's disease pages as models for categorizing and referencing my text. Both of those disease pages are similar in length and still included text like the new text I wrote for schizophrenia. Can my text be reconsidered or can you be more specific as to what I need to fix/add to get this information included in the article? Many thanks. Rmlewinson (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need secondary sources that put these [1] into context.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rmlewinson.
1. I haven't looked recently at Huntington's or Parkinson's, but knowing the editors involved there, I doubt that they are using primary sources to support that type of text. As explained to you several times in several discussions, we should use secondary reviews, not primary sources.
2. In the event those articles are using primary sources, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-- aka, two wrongs don't make a right. Because another article may do something against guideline isn't a reason to do it elsewhere.
3. I realize you want to get that information into the article; please review WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory) and our medical guidelines at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. If you can locate secondary reviews that discuss those organizations and their research efforts, then we can discuss on talk whether the information you find should be included, but holding the size of that article to something manageable has been difficult. You might recall that the topic of research wrt Huntington's was a very important breakthrough (I was living in Venezuela when those discoveries were made, and remember the significance of that research-- a situation dissimilar to schizophrenia, and discussed in secondary reviews). Wikipedia is not a directory; important research and support organizations are covered in secondary reviews for many conditions similar to schizophrenia, and we should limit our text to what is important enough to be mentioned in secondary reviews. It is not our job to provide a directory of all research or all support orgs to readers.
4. More importantly, when your text additions have been removed once, please do not continue re-adding them without gaining consensus on talk. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. This is the kind of explanation I needed. I have found Wikipedia rather difficult to navigate, but this at last makes sense.Rmlewinson (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate to that-- when I was a new editor, I had something to the effect of "who wrote the manual here" on my user page for months. I found the place indecipherable. I'm glad the explanation was helpful, and appreciate that you took the advice on board. It's always nice to encounter pleasant editors round here! The others who have weighed in on talk:schizophrenia are generally experienced medical editors, so if you're ever confused again, going to the talk page of fellow editors for discussion may be helpful. You can always post questions here-- even when I'm busy, someone else may be around to help out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you again for your gracious responses. I now have hope I can eventually get the hang of this site! Rmlewinson (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Sandy, I've been on here for nearly seven years, and I think I see your account active and editing more prolifically and more often than any other name. I remember you commenting on my adminship request, which itself was years ago now, and some of my earliest FACs. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hola y un abrazo to you, too ! Thank you for the kind words ... I've been much busier lately than in my former years of editing, but it's always nice to see an old friendly face! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back Sandy. Eric Corbett 14:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hi Sandy, I've just blocked you for this edit. Accusing others of sockpuppetry without providing evidence is a personal attack. You have been warned not to do this in the past on multiple occasions ([2][3]). If you wish to retract the allegation or provide evidence, I will be happy to life the block. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just about the most ridiculous block I've ever seen, and I've been on the end of some ridiculous blocks. You ought to be ashamed of yourself Mark, and if you don't unblock then I'll be taking this to the Swamp of Despair. Eric Corbett 16:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am reviewing this block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Eric Corbett 16:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brad, I trust your judgment, so if you think this block is not warranted, feel free to unblock at will. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having now carefully reviewed the ANI discussion, I probably need to leave the block review (I'm assuming there will be an unblock request) to another administrator after all, because this entire situation may wind up in arbitration at some point. My personal view as a general matter is in that civility/NPA situations, warning or requesting evidence to support an accusation is usually the better course than blocking for the initial making of the accusation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I'd be inclined to unblock on this as well. Raising the suspicion that a one-article redlink editor is a sock doesn't require a full checkuser case. If Sandy was railing and screaming about it, I would expect her to be able to provide some pretty solid evidence or be quiet about it. To propose it as a possibility for others to consider doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack.—Kww(talk) 16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this evidence in her statement "PotW, then and now, continues to insist the infobox was in the article when it was published, but the history shows it was not and that he installed it. (Does anyone else find it curious that a redlink created that article and never edited again? PotW says he was the publisher .. is that redlink his sock?"[4]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the input of four editors who I highly respect, I've concluded that the prevailing opinion seems to be that a warning is sufficient here. I've unblocked this account. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A warning for what? Pointing out a discrepancy and providing a hypothetical explanation for it? I've lost count of the number of times Demiurge1000 has accused me of having usurped an administrator account; have you ever blocked him for that? Eric Corbett 17:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about WP:INVOLVED. If someone is critical of PumpkinSky (which Sandy has been) would a block by a recipient of the PumpkinSky prize be of concern?[5] Or has it been given out to a sufficient number of people that this is not signficant. What about the support each gave the other during their RfA [6][7][8]. This dif used to justify the above block of course revolves around PS [9]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is a concern James; no more so than if I blocked someone who was being critical of any editor who had once given me a barnstar. I think I'm actually a recipient of such an "award" from PumpkinSky, come to think of it... I do not doubt that this block was given in good faith and not out of a desire to silence a critic, and as such, it can stand or fall on its own merits. NW (Talk) 17:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks NW. Over a hundred people have these awards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark's unblock log entry says, "After discussion with other admins, the consensus seems to be that a warning will suffice." I see no such consensus for a warning. His block log entry says, "Personal attacks or harassment: Accusing others of socking without providing evidence after being warned not to do so." It saddens me that an admin can add this to the previously pristine log of exceptional contributor, and now it's there forever. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. If anyone is to be warned it ought to be Mark himself. Eric Corbett 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Anthony: There is no such consensus, of course. Eric called this the most ridiculous block he'd ever seen. Brad stated that, in general, either warning or requesting evidence would be more appropriate than a block. Kww opined that there was no personal attack in Sandy's comment. And James suggested that Sandy did provide evidence for her accusation. Brad is the only one who mentioned a warning, and then in general terms and as one of several options. There is a consensus, but it's a consensus that this block was mistakenly applied. In that light, Mark's statement in the block log is unfortunate.

I don't mean to pile on as the block has already been lifted, but since the black mark will remain in Sandy's block log I'll add my view that this was an inappropriate block and should have been lifted without prejudice. I'd ask Mark to be a bit more circumspect in the future about what he writes in block/unblock statements, since they are effectively indelible. As block logs are generally not amended even to correct mis-statements, a link to this discussion will have to suffice when Sandy's block log is cited in the future. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 Mark's unblock log entry says, "After discussion with other admins, the consensus seems to be that a warning will suffice." I see no such consensus for a warning. His block log entry says, "Personal attacks or harassment: Accusing others of socking without providing evidence after being warned not to do so." It saddens me that an admin can add this to the previously pristine log of exceptional contributor, and now it's there forever. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]])  17:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 :Quite. If anyone is to be warned it ought to be Mark himself. [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
+:<small>([[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]])</small> @Anthony: There is no such consensus, of course. Eric called this the most ridiculous block he'd ever seen. Brad stated that, in general, either warning ''or requesting evidence'' would be more appropriate than a block. Kww opined that there was no personal attack in Sandy's comment. And James suggested that Sandy ''did'' provide evidence for her accusation. Brad is the only one who mentioned a warning, and then in general terms and as one of several options. There ''is'' a consensus, but it's a consensus that this block was mistakenly applied. In that light, Mark's statement in the block log is unfortunate.<p>I don't mean to pile on as the block has already been lifted, but since the black mark will remain in Sandy's block log I'll add my view that this was an inappropriate block and should have been lifted without prejudice. I'd ask Mark to be a bit more circumspect in the future about what he writes in block/unblock statements, since they are effectively indelible. As block logs are generally not amended even to correct mis-statements, a link to this discussion will have to suffice when Sandy's block log is cited in the future. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)