Jump to content

User talk:Article editor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 11 January 2013 (→‎Reactivating request for unblock: copy editing restrictions for ease of reference.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Article editor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Blocked

I have emergency-blocked you to stop you from doing your undiscussed and controversial mass edits. You can be unblocked whenever you agree to stop making undiscussed mass edits and to form consensus for any further moves and redirects you wish to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Article editor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked for "mass edits"—mostly creating redirects and recently moving three pages. Most redirects were plausible misspellings or alternative romanizations. If unblocked, I will refrain on other types of redirects.

The recent moves were Salafi, Wahhabi, and Ahmadiyya → Salafism, Wahhabism, and Ahmadism. Though undiscussed, these terms are not unheard of: "salafism" and "wahhabism" appear in the header paragraphs, and are not uncommon terms ([1], [2], [3]). The original titles were either adjectives or refer to a person, while "-ism" forms a noun. These titles were neutral, although I admit Ahmadism may not be common enough. I had not been involved in a renaming dispute recently except for those, and will refrain from bold moves in the future. Article editor (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We're backlogged a bit, so temporarily declining this for the time being without prejudice; once you have an opportunity to respond to Thryduulf's comments below, please post a new unblock template so we know to check back. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For reference, the ANI discussion of the incident is here. That discussion shows at least two moves/redirects which immediately threw up red flags from other editors, and I imagine there are more as well that would have caused concern had they been noticed. Do you plan to discuss any moves you might be considering in the future with editors on those articles? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will discuss page moves in the talk page in the future. --Article editor (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to consider unblocking you. However, I am not satisfied that you are really aware of the extent of the problem. Some of the redirects you have created might be defensible, while some have been ridiculous. However, even for those that are not totally indefensible, it is not necessary to create a redirect for every possible misspelling or alternative romanisation you can think of that someone somewhere might conceivably sometime search for: just the ones that are likely to be commonly searched for are enough. I also see that you have been creating controversial redirects and making controversial moves since 2006, and as far as I can see your only response to messages about the problems, before you were blocked, was to remove them from this talk page. You have said that you will discuss page moves in future, which is fine. However, on the subject of redirects, you say "Most redirects were plausible misspellings or alternative romanizations. If unblocked, I will refrain on other types of redirects." The problem there is that your idea of what is "plausible" does not always agree with that of other editors. I would really prefer you to undertake to stay away from redirects altogether, and at the very least would want a much stronger undertaking to restrict your redirecting activity before I was willing to unblock you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No editor has, as an absolute imperative, to create redirects. I would only be happy to unblock, in view of your very long history, if you agreed not to create any redirects at all, of any kind and in any area. I await your response, please. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree to cease creating redirects, but I want to make sure it's understood that I won't be giving up rights to editing an existing redirect, e.g. for purposes such as making it more specifically targeted (this is only an example). --Article editor (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not personally accept that limitation; I will let another admin decide from here in.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-Administrator Intervention) I hate to see editors getting their hands tied behind their backs like we're throwing at Article Editor here but when it has to be done it has to be done. I'm problably not going to be very popular asking this but are we sure his username doesn't break any rules? On matters of what he was blocked for I have a suggestion, how about unblock him but ban him from doing redirects at all with long bans or perma-bans in place if he makes the mistake of not following that ban? MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the username, I don't see any issues with it. Regarding the reason for the block, I understand it, the complete ban on redirects was what Anthony.bradbury proposed above (although without the explicit sanction) and Article editor indicated he was not happy with. AE: How about the following instead:

  1. You are not allowed to create any redirects yourself except where both the redirect and its target are within your own user or user talk namespaces.
  2. You must discuss and gain consensus for all pages moves. If you move a page, you may allow the system to create a redirect as normal. You may not move a page with the sole intention of creating a redirect.
    • e.g. moving Example to Piemērs and then back again so that the latter title redirects to the former is not allowed.
  3. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the creation of redirects on the talk page of the proposed target and/or a relevant wikiproject or centralised discussion, but you may not create them yourself even if there is consensus in favour of them. If the discussion is not at the proposed target's talk page, you must link to the discussion from there.
  4. You may not retarget any existing redirect except where both the redirect and it's new target are within your user or user talk namespace.
  5. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the retargetting of a redirect at one of (a) the talk page of the current target, (b) the talk page of the proposed target, (c) the talk page of the redirect itself (you are allowed to create the talk page for this if it does not already exist), (d) a relevant WikiProject or centralised discussion, or (e) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the discussion is at (a) then you must link to it from (b) and vice versa. If the discussion is at (c) or (d) you must link to it from both (a) and (b). If the discussion is at (e) then you must link to it from the talk page of (a) and (b) if the redirect is not tagged with an RfD template. You may create the talk pages as necessary to comply with this. In all cases you may also link to the discussion from elsewhere at your discretion.
  6. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the deletion or retargetting of any redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and you are allowed to edit a redirect in order to nominate it according to the instructions at RfD.
  7. You are allowed to make neutral statements that inform users or groups of users about the discussion of any redirect relevant to that person or group. You may do this wherever the discussion is taking place.
  8. You are not allowed to implement the consensus of any RfD discussion.
  9. You are all allowed to take part in discussions about redirects started by others, wherever that discussion is.
  10. Any discussion you initiate or contribute to may be about either one or more than one redirect. In the latter case the above rules apply to every redirect being discussed as if it were being discussed individually.
    • e.g. if you propose the retargetting of three redirects in one discussion, you must notify the current and proposed targets of all 3.
  11. You may not group unrelated redirects into a single discussion and all groups must be finite in number.
  12. You are not allowed to initiate more than five discussions about redirects in any 24 hour period. This is totalled across all venues and includes RfD nominations. The limit is the number of discussions, not the number of redirects being discussed in each.
  13. You are not restricted on the number of existing discussions to which you may contribute.
  14. If a discussion about a redirect in which you have taken part has reached a consensus for an action that you are not allowed to perform, but which has not been implemented after a reasonable time, you may ask another user to implement it. You may do this by means of a request on a relevant talk page or user talk page. You may at your discretion use the {{edit request}} system, and you may create talk pages of existing redirects in order to do so.
  15. You may tag existing redirects with an categorisation template per WP:RCAT. You may also correct and/or update existing categorisation templates.
  16. You may tag the talk pages of existing redirects with the banners of relevant WikiProjects (unless that WikiProject objects, either generally or specifically), and you may create the talk pages if necessary. You may also correct and/or update existing banners.

I know that looks a lot, but it is just setting out what are actually fairly simple rules about what you can and cannot do relating to redirects. Hopefully they are unambiguous and easy to follow without the opportunity for anyone to wikilawyer around them - most of them are actually about what you explicitly can do, rather than what you can't.

tldr: You may not create or retarget any redirect outside your user or user talk space. You may propose the creation, retargetting or deletion of redirects at the appropriate venue provided you advertise these discussions, but you may not initiate more than five proposals in any 24 hours and you may not implement the consensus of these discussions. You may contribute to an unlimited number of existing discussions about redirects regardless of who started them. You are allowed to categorise redirects and tag their talk pages for wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goko and Gokō nominated at RfD

Two redirects you created in 2009, Goko and Gokō, both of which point to Kim Dae-jung, have been nominated at RfD - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 6#Goko. I recognise that you are currently blocked and so are unable to comment directly there, but I will copy any comments you make on this page to the discussion on your behalf. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate the behaviour you will employ in future, which will guide decision on your unblock request. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created the redirects, and at first I had trouble remembering what they referred to. I understand that they probably should be deleted. --Article editor (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment, I've copied it to the discussion for you (and sorry it took a while). [4] Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reactivating request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Article editor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reactivating a temporarily closed request for unblock. See previous request for earlier discussion. --Article editor (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Given your acceptance of the editing restrictions, and nobody commenting for over a day, I have unblocked you subject to abiding by those restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept Thryduulf's proposal. I was only afraid that accepting a blanket ban on redirects would have severely limited my ability to edit.

As for MIVP's concern, my username had already been discussed here: [5]. --Article editor (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting those restrctions, hopefully now we can all move forward. For ease of reference, you might want to copy the editing restrictions to a page in your userspace, but I leave that entirely to your discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of linking at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I've copied the restrictions verbatim from above here.

Agreed editing restrictions

  1. You are not allowed to create any redirects yourself except where both the redirect and its target are within your own user or user talk namespaces.
  2. You must discuss and gain consensus for all pages moves. If you move a page, you may allow the system to create a redirect as normal. You may not move a page with the sole intention of creating a redirect.
    • e.g. moving Example to Piemērs and then back again so that the latter title redirects to the former is not allowed.
  3. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the creation of redirects on the talk page of the proposed target and/or a relevant wikiproject or centralised discussion, but you may not create them yourself even if there is consensus in favour of them. If the discussion is not at the proposed target's talk page, you must link to the discussion from there.
  4. You may not retarget any existing redirect except where both the redirect and it's new target are within your user or user talk namespace.
  5. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the retargetting of a redirect at one of (a) the talk page of the current target, (b) the talk page of the proposed target, (c) the talk page of the redirect itself (you are allowed to create the talk page for this if it does not already exist), (d) a relevant WikiProject or centralised discussion, or (e) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the discussion is at (a) then you must link to it from (b) and vice versa. If the discussion is at (c) or (d) you must link to it from both (a) and (b). If the discussion is at (e) then you must link to it from the talk page of (a) and (b) if the redirect is not tagged with an RfD template. You may create the talk pages as necessary to comply with this. In all cases you may also link to the discussion from elsewhere at your discretion.
  6. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the deletion or retargetting of any redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and you are allowed to edit a redirect in order to nominate it according to the instructions at RfD.
  7. You are allowed to make neutral statements that inform users or groups of users about the discussion of any redirect relevant to that person or group. You may do this wherever the discussion is taking place.
  8. You are not allowed to implement the consensus of any RfD discussion.
  9. You are all allowed to take part in discussions about redirects started by others, wherever that discussion is.
  10. Any discussion you initiate or contribute to may be about either one or more than one redirect. In the latter case the above rules apply to every redirect being discussed as if it were being discussed individually.
    • e.g. if you propose the retargetting of three redirects in one discussion, you must notify the current and proposed targets of all 3.
  11. You may not group unrelated redirects into a single discussion and all groups must be finite in number.
  12. You are not allowed to initiate more than five discussions about redirects in any 24 hour period. This is totalled across all venues and includes RfD nominations. The limit is the number of discussions, not the number of redirects being discussed in each.
  13. You are not restricted on the number of existing discussions to which you may contribute.
  14. If a discussion about a redirect in which you have taken part has reached a consensus for an action that you are not allowed to perform, but which has not been implemented after a reasonable time, you may ask another user to implement it. You may do this by means of a request on a relevant talk page or user talk page. You may at your discretion use the {{edit request}} system, and you may create talk pages of existing redirects in order to do so.
  15. You may tag existing redirects with an categorisation template per WP:RCAT. You may also correct and/or update existing categorisation templates.
  16. You may tag the talk pages of existing redirects with the banners of relevant WikiProjects (unless that WikiProject objects, either generally or specifically), and you may create the talk pages if necessary. You may also correct and/or update existing banners.

I know that looks a lot, but it is just setting out what are actually fairly simple rules about what you can and cannot do relating to redirects. Hopefully they are unambiguous and easy to follow without the opportunity for anyone to wikilawyer around them - most of them are actually about what you explicitly can do, rather than what you can't.

tldr: You may not create or retarget any redirect outside your user or user talk space. You may propose the creation, retargetting or deletion of redirects at the appropriate venue provided you advertise these discussions, but you may not initiate more than five proposals in any 24 hours and you may not implement the consensus of these discussions. You may contribute to an unlimited number of existing discussions about redirects regardless of who started them. You are allowed to categorise redirects and tag their talk pages for wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Article_editor&oldid=532464692"