Considering that user was unblocked by Jimbo himself just a few days ago, don't you think you should get permission from him before reblocking? What "legal intimidation" are you referring to, anyway? I haven't seen any from him. Everyking08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I was reblocking him because I disagreed with the unblock in the first place, that would be true (and I would be wheel warring), but I was blocking on the basis of behaviour (documented at WP:ANI) which occurred after the unblock - more to the point, an unblock of a second indefinite block, under which circumstances the user is clearly on very thin ice. I notified Jimbo on his talk page, but as I said there, I'm sure he wouldn't want us to be paralysed with fear and unable to stop further incivil behaviour from someone in the last chance saloon just because it was his name in the block log. --Sam Blanning(talk)12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What behavior are you referring to, though? I have been following at least some of the discussion he's been involved in and haven't seen him doing anything wrong. Everyking22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thread, which I read before I even posted to your talk, is on AN, and none of the four links listed by Durova give any apparent support to your claim that he made legal threats; in fact, in two of the links he explicitly denies making legal threats. Possibly you are alleging subtle insinations in specific parts of the comments and I didn't detect them; if that's the case, could you give me specific quotes of the alleged threats? Everyking00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the sort of nudge nudge, wink wink, I'm-saying-the-exact-opposite-of-what-I-actually-mean stuff that people who've been given a second (actually third) chance after being indefinitely blocked (twice) tend to use because they think we're all total morons who either won't see through it or will be too afraid to call them on it, and it's exactly the sort of thing that will not be tolerated from such users. And yes, you're misinterpreting. Sorry I sent you to the wrong board, though. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Kohs made his implicit threats explicit to me via email. You can ignore that if you want, since I can't prove it, but you should know that you won't be able to change my mind about what he meant when he already made it clear what he meant himself. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can believe what you want based on whatever communications you've had, but if the evidence doesn't exist on-wiki then you shouldn't have blocked. You acknowledge that he was denying it in the very posts you claim are evidence that he was doing it—isn't that a weird contradiction? Logically, why would a person even want to do that? If he wanted to make a legal threat, then doesn't simultaneously denying it defeat the purpose of it? And again, if legal threats do exist in those links in some form, please specifically quote them. It's exasperating to have someone post links they claim say one thing, then to look at them and see they appear to say something completely different, and not receive any clarification about how the original interpretation was reached. As for the Woolmer issue, it certainly looked like you were poking fun at it; if my interpretation of that was wrong, could you explain what you intended by it? Everyking03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the further evidence posted by others on the WP:AN thread have removed all doubt. If you want the block overturned, you need to post there and convince them that "You children are among the most paranoid, spineless people I have ever encountered" and "Get back to your Dungeons & Dragons game" are typical of productive contributors, and that someone who says things like "I'm sure their lawyers would love to hear them described as trivial" would never dream of engaging in legal intimidation. Those are specific quotes. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He already was a productive contributor, although his productive work was promptly reverted and deleted after the ban (although he did not make those edits as a banned user), so I don't feel I should need to argue that. Productive contributors get angry sometimes and say unpleasant things. Anyway, all that is irrelevant to the reason he was banned, which was legal intimidation. The third quote you provide could back up that claim if made in a certain context, but I'm not having any luck finding the edit, so I can't see the context of it. Was this from the e-mail he sent you? And I suppose you are not going to explain the Woolmer comment. Everyking15:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to spend any more time on this conversation, I've already explained myself adequately. I understand that you can't post on AN, something I'd initially forgotten about, but I understand you can still use RFC if you're that desperate for Kohs to have the run of the place. --Sam Blanning(talk)16:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have not adequately explained the ban, which is something you have a responsibility to do. Can you point me to the edit in which he made the quote above, or tell me if it was made by e-mail? Everyking19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please just unblock 202.76.162.34 now? Not only did you have to scare me even more by doing it on a 13th, but the block will end after the year 12's at my school leave! I want the block to end before they leave!
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
Your comment "the wikilawyers who think that "The world is flat" should be tagged {{citation needed}}" just made me laugh out loud. Thanks for giving me a good start to the day. Nandesuka12:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby confirm that the copyright to the article on reference is owned by Solution UK Ltd. of which I am a director. (Solution UK Ltd. also own http://www.worldofclean.co.uk where the article is also published).
I also confirm that we wish to release the content under the GFDL in order that it may appear on your pages.
In that case you're free to re-add the information to Wikipedia wherever you want. I should re-emphasise before you do that any content you add can be freely edited and reproduced by other Wikipedia editors in line with our content content policies. --Sam Blanning(talk)00:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you re-re-open this, I will block you for disruption. Discussion can continue on Wikipedia talk:Deletion review but the part where you force people to waste their time by threatening the restoration of unverified content if they don't maintain a majority in favour of policy is over. If it really is likely to be overturned, which I expect you know it isn't, someone other than you will reverse it. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're threatening improper blocks, too? Any more disruptive acts you want to toss our there? Plan on blocking yourself? Or maybe a long-overdue resignation is in order? I may take this to Arbcom at this point, you continued abuse and threats are detrimental to the project. --badlydrawnjefftalk21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have demonstrated your disagreement with the fundamental mission of this site - providing verified information - often enough that your opinion really isn't of any relevance to me. Perhaps you should think about whether that is your problem or mine. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's much nicer to believe that I'm "making up a story" than that someone, after observing your contributions and motives for many months, could form a negative impression about you that might be justifiable. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the laugher - you obviously haven't observed much of anything if that's the conclusion you've come to. Have a negative impression of me, I'm not concerned with pleasing anyone. But coming to a conclusion like that? No, sorry, that doesn't work. I can point to a number of disruptive actions and hollow, improper threats you've made to come to the obvious conclusion, you can't do the same about me without some storytelling. You, of all people, should know better than that. Given your past actions, though, I'm not the least bit shocked. --badlydrawnjefftalk21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can really point to "a number of disruptive actions and hollow, improper threats", then you know where RfC is. Otherwise, you give me no reason to think I might be doing the project any harm or that any section of the community apart from you disputes my actions. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the typical people will come to your rescue as they did last time. No, you'll know when I'm ready to escalate this further. Your comments about me without any cause or reason will certainly work against you though. --badlydrawnjefftalk22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tread carefully, Jeff, because it can be just as easily argued that you are guilty of the same type of edits you're accusing him of. Rockstar (T/C) 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel, Jeff has a role to play here in connection with deletion policy (in addition to having written one of last week's featured articles). There is no need to question his overall commitment to Wikipedia.
Jeff, in your zealous pursuit of your inclusionist mission (much of which I share), you have once again a la Brian Peppers made an excruciatingly poor choice of which article to turn into a cause celebre. Please reconsider. Newyorkbrad22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question his commitment; commitment to something is just an emotion. To try and measure it over the Internet, let alone question it, amounts to pissing in the wind. His grasp of fundamental Wikipedia policy, however, like mine and like every single Wikipedia user's, affects our ability to provide our readers with the reliable content we promise. I'll question it when it becomes necessary. --Sam Blanning(talk)22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you have to go with what works. It doesn't help that it's the same person makiing the same boneheaded, disruptive move. If anyone else closed it, it wouldn't have been the same issue. Instead, it has to be the same song and dance - no thanks. --badlydrawnjefftalk22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly adds to it. If this wasn't a typical issue with you, and if you weren't involved with the original discussion it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal as it's become. --badlydrawnjefftalk04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you care, as a person who really doesn't know any of you, it strikes me as an extraordinarily poor choice for you to have reclosed that particular DRV entry. Talk about the appearance of COI! But I understand (I think) from the position you appear to have taken (the "You kids! Get off my lawn!" position). If you've already discounted anything those of us who disagree with you do as being inappropriate, of course you'll always shut us down without respect or care about the consequences as we see them, because you already don't care. --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts13:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the appearance of COI, I don't mean WP:COI, but in the wider sense where in, for instance, a public figure absents her/himself from further participation in a process that is about her/him. In this case, it did not seem appropriate to me that when Jeff reversed your closure, you reclosed. What would have been more proper in my eyes would have been if you waited for another admin to close the same DRV. Doing it yourself looked too much like an edit war, and kept Jeff from being able to appeal while retaining any dignity at all. The fact that you closed, then reclosed after Jeff's objection indicated to me that you had absolutely no respect whatsoever for his argument. Since the situation was not an emergency, you could have stepped aside and avoided looking like you were escalating by imposing your will in a situation where it was already clear you disagreed. --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a closed discussion apparently open would have created confusion. Speed was more important than following non-existent quasi-legal niceties. --Sam Blanning(talk)16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say "non-existent quasi-legal niceties", I say "respect". Take your pick, I think effectively it boils down to the same thing. Ego vs. working nicely together with folks that have differing viewpoints. --MalcolmGinTalk / Conts21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Majority != Consensus
Re your closing of today's DRV for Darvon Cocktail, please consider changing your wording. Even if closing the DRV appeal attempt did have majority support, it did not have consensus support, because nobody convinced me, or User:Badlydrawnjeff. --MalcolmGin23:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a unanimous vote. In most disputes, there will by definition be people who disagree with a ruling. Consensus, therefore, is meant often to be general consensus. Rockstar (T/C) 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a note about the actual definition of consensus in User_talk:Rockstar914 that I think would be useful in any discussion about majority vs. consensus decision-making. The language really needs to be clear here, especially for records/keeping and history tracking. --MalcolmGin03:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sam can you restore Ali Zafar's Page for me to an old full version, someone has edited the page again and deleted large chunks of text and the photo. Why are people so lame???
I saw your comment on RfAr. Obviously a hijacked account is a possibility, despite the checkuser comment, and if Robdurbar shows up a few weeks from now and post a shocked "yikes, that wasn't me," the situation can be reevaluated (indeed, the case I posted will provide a location for the reevaluation to take place in). However, on ANI it was pointed out that besides admins who tried to stop what he was doing, some of the accounts Robdurar blocked belonged to editors he'd had disputes with in the past, suggesting to some people who had interacted with him before (I have not) it really was probably him. :(
We may never know, but the best theory I've seen for what happened is that Robdurbar decided to retire last month because he was finding editing too addictive or time-consuming (see his goodbye comments from early March), felt himself being drawn back, and wanted to make sure he wouldn't be tempted to resume editing or adminning, at least not under this account. He has succeeded, although I hope this method of Wikibreak enforcement does not become common in the future. Newyorkbrad10:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of any of that, so I'd say my assumption is probably wrong. Still, it's a shame. I can't help thinking of someone else this week who decided to burn some bridges as they made their exit (from the world rather than Wikipedia in this case), with unimaginably more horrific consequences. We can hope it doesn't become common but it certainly seems to be a disturbingly tempting impulse. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of Ducks and Boats and Namespaces
Hi Sam (if I may call you so).
We have probably not directly encountered each before, but I think recall your face from the other side of the trenches during the userbox wars. In any case, I find you comments worriesome, to tell the truth. It is true - userboxes in userspace are used in a template like fashion. But then to apply a wide "divisive and inflammatory" or perhaps a CSD:T2 to it does dangerously rock the boat. The compromise we found - non NPOV userboxes go out of templatespace into userspace helped calm down the userbox wars. Let's not rock the boat again - I do not want to see another userbox war - too much time is wasted and too much wikidrama and grief occurs (now, before you say "that is exactly the reason to get rid of all userboxes" - remember that those on the "other side" do not feel that way and many will fight tooth and nail to protect their trancludable rectangles of colour, even if only on principle). Let's live with compromise, ok? CharonX/talk01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the compromise was to allow material unrelated to the encyclopaedia - userboxes - would be moved into userspace where they would be marginally more suited. Moving them there did not mean they suddenly became exempt from policy. I'm certainly not rocking any boat, because CSD Templates-1 has been in place for months. --Sam Blanning(talk)01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, also part of the compromise was that userspace's more relaxed stance to things would be applied, basically like all userspace, if it is ok to do under WP:USER and the other "big" policies (like civility and NPA - sans NPOV, like all userspace of course) its ok (with individual exceptions for WP:POINT pushers and the like). Otherwise we'd have situation where userboxes are theoretically allowed (you may have "userboxes" in userspace), but pratically forbidden ("you can't userboxes cuz if they are transcluded they are templates and can be whacked via T1"). You realize this way you could T1 all religion, POV, unencyclopedic etc. userboxes in userspace. And we both know where THAT would end - we both have been there. CharonX/talk01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
