Jump to content

User talk:Proofreader77/Archive 07

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


3RR warning on Roman Polanski

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Roman Polanski‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

False 3RR warning by Tombaker321

At the time of the 3RR warning above by Tombaker321 Proofreader77 has reverted once on Roman Polanski. (But apparently there is an edit war on and this is a pre-emptive strike. Proofreader77 (interact) 22:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The warning is appropriate, and is a continuation of your self acknowledge 3RR violation. SEE: Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule
You state you have violated the 3RR here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#Self-acknowledgment_of_3RR_of_Roman_Polanski --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Why don't you take a step back for a minute. Remember you don't own the page...As long as he is posting within policy he has the privelege of posting on Jimbos page, until he is told to stop by Jimbo. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has told Mr. Tombe to step back. You are continuing to inflict discussion on the page beyond propriety. Proofreader77 (interact) 06:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I can go and show you the different policies that would allow him to post there however I would just let him say what he is going to say. If things are the way you keep claiming they are no doubt Jimbo will put a stop to it. If not try WP:DENY. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Buy a clue at the clue store. Proofreader77 (interact) 07:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The clue store was closed it told me to go to WP:OWN unless you have some hidden authority I am not aware of.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You have no respect for the owner of the page's wishes. Proofreader77 (interact) 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I've shown the policy you are currently violating, maybe you can show me the policy David is violating and the policy that grants you the authority to decide it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


[1] Proofreader77 (interact) 10:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (interact) 08:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Postmortem (open unsent email to all concerned)

Extended content

Postmortem: Once Jimbo tells someone to get lost for a month, he doesn't have to keep saying that. Those who watch his page should conform talk actions to his expressed wishes:

"... I think you really should step back and take a break from even looking at Wikipedia for a month or so. Get some fresh air. Find another hobby. And come back and let's discuss it when you aren't so angry.-- Jimbo Wales 06:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=334063454&oldid=334052618

Again, no Jimbo does not have to repeat himself. Nor hand-archive things himself. That is not how "power" works.

I was watching everything that happened.

I clarified the matter politely but firmly in previous topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=334223712&oldid=334223677

... before declaring Tombe's NEW topic "Out of order."

When Jimbo says get lost for a month, don't start a new topic.

When I said "out of order." Some admin should have hat/hab closed it. Since they didn't, we had this "little mess" today.

Next time, pay attention. lol No, don't argue. :-) I know what I'm doing. Will get that verified for you ... in due course. :-)

Cheers,

BOKE

This is your final warning. Your comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales, and elsewhere, about the conduct of David Tombe and Hell in a Bucket are, by your own admission, intended to be disruptive. If you continue to make them, you will be blocked from editing. Prodego talk 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In case there is any doubt, Prodego isn't kidding and you need to take that warning very seriously. I was on my way here to warn you myself. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Owing to this edit, after you had been straightforwardly warned, I have blocked you from editing for 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requests by Proofreader77 to blocking administrator Gwen Gale

  • I respectfully request that you revert your (Gwen Gale's) undo of my (Proofreader77's) edit on Talk:Jimbo Wales
    Note: Edit summary of edit reverted:
    (→1 + 9 = 10?: Update [9+1=10: A STORY OF CREATIVE GIVING]: - ... episode 3: in which my (transiently?) villainous bank ... CONTINUES to resist the (inevitable!) donation of 9 (more Benjamins) in response to Jimbo's appeal ...)
    The matter of the appropriateness of the block can be addressed when the block expires, but that piece of the ongoing story of the donation should not be removed as collateral of the dispute regarding rhetorical interaction in a different topic on the page.
    -- Proofreader77 (interact) 01:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia donation (a story of creative giving) updates

(See) User talk:Jimbo Wales: 1 + 9 = 10 - (Now archived)
  • 1st donation by Proofreader77: $100 (Thank you email: Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:10 AM)
  • 2nd donation by Proofreader77: $200 (Thank you email: Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 8:20 PM)
  • 3rd donation by Proofreader77: $700 (Thank you email: Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:10 AM)

$100 + ($200 + $700) = $1,000
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy of Proofreader77 email to Prodego (prior to unblock decline below)

Copy of Proofreader77 email to Prodego prior to unblock decline below
Copy of your message to Prodego
Wikipedia e-mail - Holiday suggestion (regarding the current matter re User talk; Jimbo Wales)

Honorable Prodego:

Perhaps you should take a moment to take a better survey of the (rhetorical) landscape and consider retracting the warning on my talk page.

Consider that, before I said: "Out of order" to David Tombe ...

Jimbo had said (to David Tombe): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=334063454&oldid=334052618 ... I think you really should step back and take a break from even looking at Wikipedia for a month or so. Get some fresh air. Find another hobby. And come back and let's discuss it when you aren't so angry.-- Jimbo Wales 06:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And (so) I had said (to David Tombe): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=334223712&oldid=334223677

BEGIN QUOTE (Proofreader77)----

Mr. Tombe (David, whichever you would prefer to be addressed as): While I certainly do not speak for Mr. Wales, and on other occasions might even tend to concur with implications of some of your points here — but speaking as somewhat knowledgeable of rhetorical matters, it seems the choice of combative stance might appear to be the basis of the response you've gotten (and continue to get).

If I remember correctly, I saw words somewhere to the effect that you could "appeal to Jimbo." Consider that if you were appealing to, e.g., the Supreme Court, the justices would treat a rhetorically disrespectful appeal ... with contempt.

So, even if you are correct, the starting point is behaving rhetorically as if the people/roles you're appealing to are honorable holders of their positions of authority (and that the rules applied — are not going to change the instant someone disagrees with them.) If that is not the starting point, "you cannot get there from here."

Now: At this time, the "rhetorical field" is far too negatively charged to back up and start again (whatever the merits may be). Again: at this time.

I have fairly good rhetorical judgment on things like this. (Although others may disagree profoundly:-). But I will offer you the following rhetorical rule I operate from: "Do not fight battles. Transcend them." It seems you are much invested in "this battle." My unsolicited and probably hugely unwelcome advice ... is to step back and see if the project means enough to you ... to, yes, transcend the emotions of the moment ... and see if there is not a "higher solution" which may be reached ... in the future.

("We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming." :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

-- END QUOTE (Proofreader77 --

Honorable Prodego, consider not walking into a rhetorical situation you are not familiar with, and responding with your gut.

Now, I respectfully suggest you retract your warning on my talk page - it does not, nor will not reflect well on your status as administrator on en.wikipedia.

Sincerely,

BOKE 

  * http://www.boke.com
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77#Real_life_identity_of_Proofreader77
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77#The_story_of_how_Proofreader77_came_to_be
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).

Proofreader77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ask User:Jimbo Wales if User:Proofreader77 should be blocked for rhetorical actions on User talk:Jimbo Wales. This is a serious request made by a (serious) donor to Wikipedia. NOTE: I am quite competent in judging matters of rhetorical interaction. The administrative actions with regard to the events on User talk:Jimbo Wales are improper - and will be illustrated to be so under proper community discussion of the general issues of "rhetorical interaction" and "What is Proofreader77 doing?"

Decline reason:

I gave you a final warning that if you continued your disruption on User talk:Jimbo Wales that would would be blocked. So you should not be surprised that when you continued your disruption on User talk:Jimbo Wales, you were blocked. Prodego talk 23:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Notes re Predego's warning (note: scope), timing of warning/block, (WP $1,000 donation update) edit triggering block

Documentation

MY disagreement had been the issue of ownership on Jimbos page. I made a pretty big mistake though and i ask that if my comment was the one that caused this block please lift it. Proofreader hadn't progressed from the warning Prodego had placed. I saw PRO and in my mind I saw proofreader. I stand by my WP:OWN comments but I DID MISREAD THE POSTER. My most hearfelt and profound apologies if this was the case and my support for unblock if it was. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No post you made brought about the warnings or the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I know we had a disagreement. Just wanted to make sure because a block wasn't what I was aiming for. Obviously Proof feels very strong in his support for the pedia. I luad his contributions, mine was only a dollar. 23:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Proofreader's disruption of talk and project pages began long before the thread on Jimbo's talk. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While the barfight continues, the music starts

I finally gave the German country music song a listen. I was having trouble with my video watching software, I guess it needed updating. Seems to work okay now. I liked the slide guitar. Guten tag. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My theme song of the season. :) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Timestamp

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Try this......

I like music like that...even if I don't understand it. Try this, it's a bit country and my favorite band to boot. [[2]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

or this...[[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This one was the best sorry [[

You just have to imagine me being drunk shouting that in your face. (Note, I'm not drunk) but I wanted to send you a happy new years video which is coincidently my the song from which I got my username.! Happy Wishes to you in 2010.[[4]] ]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry my typing could be loads improved.....i meant to delete that....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks ... Playing Grateful Dead this morning ... and now I can even spell it. LoL Proofreader77 (interact) 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside: As seen on the watchlist :-)

Self acknowledgment of 3RR on Roman Polanski

Now, it's 3RR. The problem of the SPA on Roman Polanski is well-documented. What to try next was suggested at recent AN/I regarding the patterns of editing by the WP:SPA User:Tombaker321. Continuing edit warring is clearly not the answer. Proofreader77 (interact) 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that I am engaged in an open discussion with the administrator who formally installed your restriction, upgraded the restrictions, then removed them, then gave you a Block for disruptive editing. I believe per that discussion, the next avenue that is appropriate will be raising my continued concerns to the proper forum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Proofreader77....Again rgds --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice of report by Proofreader77 filed re SPA Tombaker321 at AN/3

FYI: an AN/3 report has been filed

NOTE: Tombaker321 has deleted the 3RR warning from their talk page.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 00:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(Note: WSJ) Jimmy Wales and Andrea Weckerle

Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2009, 9:01 A.M. ET
Keep a Civil Cybertongue
Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence

Meanwhile, Obama said (also 29 December 2009):

New York Times: Text of Obama’s Comments on Airport Security

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 [#01] Sunday service (screenplay/interactive treatment) LoL

Anti flame

Hi Proof I got your grumpy email....thanks, no one is perfect.

Some editor has been messing about (without a license) altering the anti flame barnstar and there has been recreating and redirecting...tch..and the result of it all is that the pic has gone from my barnstar, please help, I tried replacing it but to no avail.. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, amongst amigos all is good. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RIOP

Hendrik Kueck / Creative Commons 2.0

Note: Creative Commons 2.0 (attribution?) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 11:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bards

Hey, cool poem! I'm honored. May I have permission to reproduce the poem and related comments in my userspace?

Also, I noticed the thread above about Jimbo and Obama, but I didn't quite get the significance. Is there a hypocrisy about the "rude and abusive" statement and some special relevance to the bolded disrupting portion? I'm not following.

Cheers. Thanks again for the awesome poem and statement. WOW! Even the almighty was invoked. It was erased a la Gottwald and Clement (I lose track of which one was which actually), but I'd like to see it live on in another venue. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. You're very welcome. Deserved.
  2. Reproduction? Fine with me. From on high, no copyright. :-)
  3. Re news quotes: Connection - "29 December 2009" (God may know others. ^;^)
  4. Erased, huh? The Lord will be displeased. Will annotate the perpetrator(s). Then see ...
Cheers! Proofreader77 (interact) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

Notices "Documented"
I took some liberties in the transclusion and formatting. Others have arrived with their own adjustments. Per your artistic license, if any of the changes are objectionable or ill-advised, feel free to correct. Cheerios. Congrats on the barnstar. Two thousand five hundred years of progress!!! I wonder what will come of the next 2,500? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Tis yours to do with as you wish ... And as for Jehochman reference LoL, Proofreader77 has made a big deal about voting for him and had license ... which is good removed from your copy. ;) I.E., Excellent!

And as for my new Barnstar. Well, that's pretty darned perfect, too. Really nice day. (Now to get to work on the Wikipedia Western Musical. {smiling but not joking, as usual} -- Proofreader77 (interact) 23:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Socratic Barnstar
For bringing humor and surrealism to an already unintentionally humorous and surreal situation. For this and your long history of engaging in the Socratic spirit of humorously acknowledging idiocy when you see it, I award you this barnstar. They made him drink hemlock, the worst they can do to you is issue a block. That's 2500 years of progress for you. Trusilver 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

User talk:Jimbo Wales

If you continue to disrupt Jimbo's talk page with off topic comments, personal attacks, and repeatedly reviving old threads, you may be blocked from editing, or banned from editing that page. If you have something to say to Jimbo, feel free to do so, but do not continue making disruptive comments. Prodego talk 20:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting false & bs allegations/aspersions (Administrator Prodego is hereby warned)

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

Improperly blocked (again)

Will check the block log to see who. Proofreader77 (interact) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  • 21:57, 8 January 2010 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) blocked Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Disruptive editing)

Notations

Opportunity for inappropriate blocker to unblock

Get a job

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Proof, I saw what was going down, 72 hours.. bugger, jimbos page is the most watched on the wikipedia, you could appeal and promise not to do it again? Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: job - Read my mind. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Your block log is rubbish compared to mine .Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
How beautiful yours is! :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And you know how much women appreciate these "mine is bigger than yours" discussions. LOL Oberonfitch (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
[Rhetorical probability calculus: exception] Of the 3,467 possible responses to the comment above classified as "good," all have nonzero offense coefficients — which mean that any of them could be used by someone as a diff at, e.g., Arbcom, to prove something dastardly. I.E., No comment. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not too clear on the math, but that was incredibly rude of me. Probably caused by frozen brain cells (will it ever warm up again?). Please accept my apologies. Frozen chicken anyone? Oberonfitch (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey Proof. I took a gander at your contrib log (I hope you don't mind my spying!) and I didn't see a whole lot of content work. I was thinking you might enjoy expanding our coverage of poets and storytellers. Anyway, sorry to see you blocked, but I hope all is well with you! Take care. Thanks again for the poem and the cool barnstar. They're great! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    DYK (from my userpage):
    BOKE NOTE: CHAOS CONTROLLERS AND CONTENT CREATORS
    ARE BOTH REQUIRED FUNCTIONS TO MAKE WIKIPEDIA WORK

    Capiche? :-) (Activate mind reading circuits ... now. :-)

    Hint: I don't tear up over frying eggs for FAs. ;-) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 06:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the outdoor enthusiast article I created was just prodded. So if you can stay out of trouble I could really user your help! :) Plus I want a cool DYK nom for Peter Bonnett Wight and Frederick W. Garber. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
All I can tell you is that the probability matrix permutalator indicates nullification of some unspecified RfC must be prioritized among possible trajectories in the proximate space-time quadrants. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Civil, and not so civil, pov pushers have been coming after me for a long time now and will continue to do so no matter what I say or do. But I am planning to comment at some point. I saw something today about RfCs lasting a month, but I was under the impression there was no set time limit. The more names we can get on the list the more effective the Terminator will be once dispatched on clean up operations. :) Cheers. Take care Proof. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
TV PARABLE: At the end of the Buffy there were too many old vampires for Buffy and all the slayer anoinntees to handle ... That is when Spike turned into a power beam which took out all the evil ... and left a big hole in the ground where Sunnydale had been.

Ahem - Hi, Buffy. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See also

ALSO, ALSO :-)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for This is for the disruption of the talk page of Jimmy Wales. Use the unblock request template if you think it should be less than 72 hours.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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).

Proofreader77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Improper block amidst improper administrative interference in discussion on User talk: Jimbo Wales. The block was preceded by rhetorical misconduct by administrator Prodego (which will be detailed in formal allegations in the appropriate forum) on User talk: Proofreader77 (To wit: Misrepresentations of events casting false aspersions on an experienced editor.)

The blocking administrator was acting improperly affirming an improper manual archiving and so was, in effect, blocking amidst a content dispute. NOTE: I was one revert away from 3RR which would have been a natural stopping point of this until serious improper actions by administrators can be addressed formally. The ridiculously unnecessary response of a 72 hour block in this case - one in which the blocking admin had been notified on their talk re their improper actions - is suitable for framing in the hall of foolish admin moves.

BOTTOM LINE: GIVEN: (1) The warning on my talk page by administrator Predego is full of misrpresentations (and will be proven to be so in detailed rhetorical analysis). (2) The blocking by administrator Zscout370 (who I warned on their talk re improper interference with discussion on User talk: Jimbo Wales) was ridiculous given 3RR would have stopped the action even if he/she disagreed.

THEREFORE: Unblock this account. (AND NO: I promise nothing. I was not guilty of allegations. And I have one more RR on that improper manual archiving by those improperly interfering with discussion on User talk: Jimbo Wales.)

PS (requisite humor amidst foolishness: Wisdom may earn commemoration in the Wikipedia Western (musical) currently in development. If unblocking, feel free to provide link to favorite theme music for your character. ;-)

Decline reason:

Block endorsed for disrupting another user's talk page through the repeated insertion of content that is not appropriate for a user talk page even after being repeatedly being asked to stop.  Sandstein  07:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

Block decline noted (Improper administrative actions will be addressed after block expires)

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 08:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Emails sent re improper block (and reversion)

Copy of your message to Prodego: Wikipedia e-mail - Wise advice - you should undo that revert - Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:39 PM

date Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:39 PM

subject Copy of your message to Prodego: Wikipedia e-mail - Wise advice - you should undo that revert

This will not be a matter for ANI. Rather AN or Arbcom.

It will look better for you if you revert that improper action now.

[No reply necessary]

Copy of your message to Zscout370: Wikipedia e-mail Good advice: Unblock it yourself - Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM

date Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM

subject Copy of your message to Zscout370: Wikipedia e-mail Good advice: Unblock it yourself


The block was improper - following false assertions on my talk page (clearly marked as such), and after a notice on your talk page that your actions were improper.

Blocking in that situation is the wrong move.

Unblocking upon reconsideration (without template request) is a good move.

Rhetorical analysis of allegations by Prodego preceding block

Note: Serious rhetorical misconduct by Wikipedia administrator acting in that capacity - and will be treated as such.

(to be presented) Proofreader77 (interact) 01:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Delightful (ironic?) humor

(Rhetorical/statistical) Sock puppet investigation

Debating sanctions

Debating sanctions applicable in this case. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 01:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved: If a sysop's bullshit* [*misrepresentations] yields a block, they lose the mop.

Resolved: If a sysop affirms their own sock, they shall be desysopped and sitebanned for one year

Resolved: If a sysop archive locks or manually archives an active discussion with an improper assertion of "disruptive editing," they shall be guilty of "discussion interference" and shall be desysopped for 30 days for 1st offense, 90 days for second, six months for third, permanently for fourth.

(LoL) They auto-blocked the IP LONGER than the block itself

Priceless. Proofreader77 (interact) 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp

(BLP - News/obit note) French filmmaker dies

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Notification of Administrators' noticeboard/Incident

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[6]] regarding Proofreader77's Disruptive Editing. The discussion is about the topic User:Proofreader77. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged

No response warranted. (Wrong forum: improper use of ANI).

Note: Issues mentioned will be addressed in Arbcom case I am preparing for submission for consideration.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 10:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Notifications of this ANI by Tombaker321

  1. 14:32, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Tarc (→New ANI created.: new section)
  2. 14:22, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Jimbo Wales (→New ANI topic created.: new section)
  3. 10:30, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Urban XII (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  4. 10:21, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Ryulong (→New ANI created.: new section)
  5. 10:14, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:David Tombe (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  6. 10:08, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Jehochman (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  7. 09:59, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  8. 09:56, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Equazcion (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  9. 09:42, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:EdJohnston (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  10. 09:39, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Cuchullain (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  11. 09:37, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Hans Adler (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  12. 09:25, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:DGG (→New ANI created.: new section)
  13. 09:22, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Abecedare (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  14. 09:20, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Gwen Gale (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  15. 09:19, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Llywrch (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  16. 09:14, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Rd232 (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  17. 09:10, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Mathsci (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  18. 09:05, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Prodego (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  19. 09:04, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Nathan (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  20. 09:01, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Sandstein (→New ANI created.: new section) (top)
  21. 08:59, 13 January 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Zscout370 (→New ANI created.: new section)

(Recent AN3:) User:Tombaker321 reported by User:Proofreader77 (Result: 31h)

(Recent ANI:) User:Tombaker321 single purpose account at Polanski

Initiated by User: Off2riorob / Concluded 15:05, 19 December 2009

(Closed/reopened/closed)

Does (ANI-topic) size matter? :-)

Word count

(including signatures, links, diffs, acronyms, and bracketing boilerplate etc) Counting tool

  • 5290 (Revision as of 20:20, 13 January 2010 lost haiku rev:-)
  • 7024 (Revision as of 03:56, 14 January 2010 Jayron32 close)
  • 8426 (Revision as of 10:13, 14 January 2010 Bwilkins close)

Another ANI started

Documentation: continuing mistaken aspersions of "disruption"

Note: the 72-hour block has expired, but the ip-block remains

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1725500 lifted.

Request handled by: NW (Talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Timestamp (Thanks, NW ^;^)

Hey Proofreader77 welcome back. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Off2riorob! Note: Do you see the "RIO" acronym further up the page .. ."Rhetorical Interaction Orchestration" (The "P" stands for Professionals or Pretorians or ... Proofreader77 (interact) 23:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it went above my head, I often need a bump to get the point, cool. Have you got a plan? Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
re: over my head - Did I ever mention that I didn't realize that your name meant "Off to Rio" Rob — I thought it was "Off2 Riorob" (Perhaps R2D2 related. LoL)

Re "Plan" - Watch for coded transmissions. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 00:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Music for unblocking :-)

Upcoming: WP:Wikipedia Day (Jan. 15th) 9th anniversary

Will try not to be blocked for that. LoL Proofreader77 (interact) 01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Always open ...

Microwave chocolate ice cream watchlist test

NOTE: IF you put a half-gallon of chocolate ice cream in the microwave for 15 seconds (to make it easier to dip) ... but during that 15 seconds you are compelled to look at your watchlist ... and by the time you remember the ice cream ... the entire half gallon has melted ... THEN perhaps you are a little too attentive to your watchlist. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 
Proofreader: It's all in how you look at things. Pour it into a glass, insert a straw, maybe a puff of Reddi-Wip on the top and one of those rolled-up ice-cream-parlor cookies--voila, no longer an accident or an oversight, but a milkshake! ::::heads off to kitchen now:::: GJC 13:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Will gladly save all future accidental milkshakes for you. :-) Note, sadly no cookies ... had not been baking anything for ages, and recently noticed oven will not spark to life. Hmmm ... ice maker also quit two weeks ago ... Time for new appliances. LoL But microwave works! -- Proofreader77 (interact) 20:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Microwaves, I've found, are about as useful in my kitchen as a green-bean Frencher Now, my toaster oven--THAT is an oven of distinction! Then again, I'm just a total Mailliard partisan, so maybe that explains things.
Listen, do me a favor? Don't get yourself blocked. I highly doubt that anyone would block you for a report like that Tombaker guy's--his behaviour is more noticeable because his behavior is violating BLP--but some people without his POV seem to be getting salty about some of your more-esoteric flourishes and rhetorical squiggly-bits. While I truly do understand (and empathize to a scary degree with) how much fun it is to honk people off with well-written yet non-standard modes of discussion, I would hate to see you get utzed for it. Just don't make the wrong ppl mad, all right? GJC 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(My witty retort processor is still working on how to include "green-been Frencher" in a sentence with the rest of "everything." Meanwhile you might see Off2riorob for worry lessons — I think he's signing up a group class with Western music and dude ranch leotards. :-)

Fear not. I have been anointed from on high ... to part the hot chocolate (as soon as I get it all melted LoL)
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 00:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware

Proof, stay away from ANI and Jimbos talkpage and stop attracting attention for the wrong reasons, although this report had little merit there are stilleyes and ears watching your contributions for useful edits, as I told you, there are over fifty thousand uncited BLP articles in need of appraisal, this is a useful work and someone has to do it and why not you. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stay tuned. :-) Psst: Do you see the cool new talk page edit page? Just learned how to do that. ^;^ Proofreader77 (interact) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Here it is.. Category:All unreferenced BLPs over fifty thousand Bios of living people without any citations, ask me if you need any assistance as to what to do, basically go there and have a look and either prod for deletion or add some citation to support the content, add twinkle to your Special:Mypage/monobook.js as it will do most of the work for you, its easy work, let me know if you need any help or have any questions, oh, by the way...it is unpaid... but it will keep you busy and off the drama pages. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Proof, Rob's given good advice there. You seem to be good humored and sociable, yet it's important to balance sociability with a fair share of heavy lifting on the site's serious side. Best wishes, Durova401 06:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(Graciously acknowledged and responded to via email.) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Check your email for the response. Durova401 17:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(Ditto:) Proofreader77 (interact) 18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am refering to the thread by Tombaker, kinda funny he called everyone and their brother but I guiess I wasn't important enough to merit a notice. Oh well for the most part it was bullshit anyways, Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Making sure you knew WHO went to ANI. LoL Proofreader77 (interact) 06:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Chaos controllers and content creators

(BOKE NOTE: CHAOS CONTROLLERS AND CONTENT CREATORS
ARE BOTH REQUIRED FUNCTIONS TO MAKE WIKIPEDIA WORK.)

(A long-standing general misconception, to be addressed.)

See also: User talk: Jimbo Wales (Archive #52):
Content contributors Vs. Vandal fighters.

Recent changes to a case

Note: Flagged revisions

I'm tracking some of the conversation of the tech team on this. Note that few people really know what the day-to-day feel of using this will be. More complicated matter than most think. (I am thinking about that.) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good design ...

Good design ...

DIETER RAMS
Former Design Director, Braun
Kronberg, Germany

[In German - translated to English subtitles]

In my experience, users react very positively when things are clear and understandable ...

That is what particularly bothers me today — the arbitrariness and thoughtlessness with which many things are produced and brought to the market.

Not only in the sector of consumer goods,but also in architecture, in advertising.

We have too many unnecessary things everywhere.

Good design should be innovative.

Good design should make the product useful.

Good design is aesthetic design.

Good design will make a product understandable.

Good design is honest.

Good design is unobtrusive.

Good design is long-lived.

Good design is consistent in every detail.

Good design is environmentally friendly.

Last but not least, good design is as little design as possible.

We designers, we don't work in a vacuum.

We need businesspeople, as well.

We are not the fine artists we are often confused with.

Today you find only a few companies that take design seriously, as I see it.

And at the moment that is
an American company.

It is Apple.

Haiti

Help Give Care

NOTE: To donate $10 to the Red Cross, text "HAITI" to 90999

Re:Learning Chinese ...

Hi Proofreader77. Well, to be honest, I have never used programs of any kind to learn Chinese; I only know a bit of mandarin because of the several classes I've taken in an attempt to learn the language. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 05:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, anyway. Was hoping you would know THE SECRET to INSTANT mastery. LoL Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 05:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See also

Stop your vandalizm!

What you have done on Jimbo Wale's talk page is simply unacceptable. Wikipedia is not Censor! I have linked to major news media sources, and even the District Attorney in the case, who refers to Roman Polanski as a child rapist. Dream Focus 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1/2 thanks, 1/2 aaackk

"it would appear she shall prevail anyway"... Aaack! I'm not superstitious, but.... you're gonna jinx it! The margin ain't that big, and there's a lot of time to go. Don't taunt 'em, please.

BTW, with actual serious stuff going on at the RFA, fun and games would be inappropriate, but take a look in my sandbox. And a quick note, "Support because Floquenbeam wrote a really bad sonnet" is probably going to be discounted by the 'crats, so I'll settle instead for a cookie on my talk page instead. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the value of the support of a $1,000 donor to Wikipedia — who will emerge from under the current cloud ... in due course. (Note: I would have undone the comment for you, but fate has made that too late — and so shall remain.) Proofreader77 (interact) 21:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Shake rattle and roll

How are you doing? Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All is flowing as it should here, but let us be sure to direct some prayers toward Haiti. Proofreader77 (interact) 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed, civilization is a fragile veneer. Good work with the donation, as we sit in our gilded cages, being waited on hand and foot it is the least we can do. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly no blessing, but it is beautiful to see America stepping up boldly to act in a good cause (rather than all our military adventures, necessary or not) Proofreader77 (interact) 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that too when I saw the troop numbers, there is hope for humanity.. and for wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Amen. (That's a heart-felt one.) Proofreader77 (interact) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, heres a good page to keep you amused, all the most recent changes to articles and a good place to see find vandal additions to wikipedia, check em and if is vandalistic then revert then and slam them with an automatic warning template with twinkle, great fun and very rewarding work, did you get twinkle working yet? Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I know that page well... I did 1,000 manually before asking for rollback, then about 4,000 more with and without Huggle (before turning in my rollback bit — I'd done enough of that). And just this morning did this one by hand (with, in this case, a personal note, since a template wasn't really right on this one).

Note: The next phase will be about flagged revisions, and "Reviewer group" will be key. etc. Proofreader77 (interact) 23:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just watching this comedy mobster movie, I recommend it as a cool movie Be cool . Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
My favorite, but strange movie, is Zero Effect Proofreader77 (interact) 23:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a look at that movie, I want to be a reviewer, I agree with you there, that flagged revisions could well be on its way soon-ish. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Re "reviewer group" ... Someone already put together a list of people who have the experience to be on it ... I'm listed. I'll see if I can find the link, but I'm fairly certain you'd be on it too. Proofreader77 (interact) 00:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: Reviewer group - There was a list compiled back in May of last year, I'm on it, you're not, but a new list will likely be created before the group is activated. Proofreader77 (interact) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed reviewer group criteria:
Users with more than 1,000 edits, their first edit more than a year ago, and their latest edit within the past month. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 00:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Proof, very interesting, I am just looking to download the soundtrack from this cool movie, musics real good. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome Off2riorob ... And yes, music is VERY important... especially when THE ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA WATCHLIST breaks. LoL Proofreader77 (interact) 04:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Panic button (watchlist lag!!!!)
Panic button (watchlist lag!!!!)

Happy Wikipedia Birthday

Hi, Happy Wikipedia Birthday, No problem at all using that medal, actually I am very happy that you did it, it was meant to be given on 15 January and ...well, you did it for me, thank you for taking responsibility for something that I had forgotten, besides technically you couldn't steal it, I had gifted it to you too, I mean to all contributors in English Wikipedia, I would be happy if you do the same anytime I forget anything , I am very happy that you actually liked that, also thank you for your friendly message, it makes me feels good, cheers.   ■ MMXX  talk  05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And bless you for making it! It certainly made me remember the day. :-) It brightened my page and Jimbo's. But mine first! LoL Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, music always helps :-)

Unrelated interesting ...

Re:I believe you just blocked a sock (of a blocked SPA)

Hello, Proofreader77. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY (TALK) 03:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

beauty

Proof,

I have to admit to you, when I saw there were three separate new sections on the RFA's talk page, all created by you, my heart sank just a teeny tiny little bit. There are those who don't value your rhetorical flourishes. I have to say, though, that once I realized there were no sonnets, and few interesting-to-puzzle-over-but-difficult-to-parse bits, I am really impressed, and touched, by the effort you put in, in my defense. Indeed, your middle section has got me thinking from a new perspective, which is valuable whether or not the RFA passes. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(And you have just taught me about the {{clear}} template, which I have sorely wished for in the past)

And, oh yes, I figured there would be much trepidation regarding the appearance of BOKE scripture on the RfA talk page ... but the rhetorical moves I make are inspired by matrix calculation probabilities that even I do not comprehend completely. As for that middle section, it is TRUE that I have only recently come to understand that ... based on the expansion of my watchlist to embrace "the community."

LoL Well, there were plenty of words already ... All I can say is that "the universe demanded" that rhetorical response to the situation, and the effect on the result will always be indeterminate ... as it should be. :-) Cheers. (NOTE: All your fault. You wrote a sonnet.)
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 04:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

The Original Barnstar
For an excellent analysis of the distinction between adminship and content creation. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Bless you, bless you, bless you ... You have made my 3:33 AM spectacularly perfect ... with that barn star. Perfect. Thank you. Honored. Proofreader77 (interact) 11:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

You called it

[EDIT TO ADD DOCUMENTATION]:
(User rights log); 16:45 . . WJBscribe (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Floquenbeam from Rollbackers to Administrators (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam)
Proofreader77 (interact) 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Hmmm. I guess your processors are functioning properly. Maybe I am Majorly's mother? Lol. Thanks for your vocal support there, Proof. I appreciate the effort and the trust. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what you get for posting a sonnet in an RfA! LoL See ya 'round, ma. ^;^ Proofreader77 (interact) 18:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent defence on the RFA. You really owned that talk page! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! And yes, I own it — somebody charged my credit card for buying it somehow. LoL Proofreader77 (interact) 19:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
So big brother know about operation apostle do they? We will have to play this one very cagily. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Amen, to that. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 20:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Proof, let's let S. Finland leave whatever message he wants to on my talk. I'm a big boy, I can handle it, really. Thanks for looking out for me, but I'll handle it in my own inimicable way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(Replied by email.) Proofreader77 (interact) 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: SPI

ah, my sincere apologies, I didn't notice your note (still rather new to SPI clerking). I've removed my comment directed at you on the SPI page, as I relise it was unfair since you had added a note regarding the addition. But I'm still unwilling to endorse a check on PeshawarPat. Let me know if you have any questions. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Even the clerk-bot has been out-of-order tonight, so we mere humans can't expect to be too perfect. :-) Many thanks. Proofreader77 (interact) 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion/aftermath

Cool3

Have you followed the Cool3/ Kohs thing and the Arb proceeding about MZM? It has something to do with unwatched BLPs? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have been peripherally keeping track of the MZ/BLP drama (aka ".en drama of the week" on the Tech email reading list:)... a fascinating moment in Wikipedia history as flagged-revisions are flogged into reality on .en Wikipedia. Haven't read the Cool3/Koh's story ... but I'll finally catch up all the soap operas soon enough. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 18:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More fun fragments from the tech mailing list

  • Since there's no effective way to watch a million pages, probably it's not useful, no.
  • ... enwiki happens to have a pathological and poorly-defined process for making config change requests, ...
  • We've made significant changes to existing features in the past without asking communities first.
  • We don't ever hold up global development/system administration decisions on community consensus. It would be impossible even if we wanted to -- how do we go about getting consensus from several hundred wikis? Do we have to have a poll on Meta?

Interesting, but perhaps not a good idea ... What happens in tech-land should stay in tech-land, yes? But having fun today to celebrate the satisfying conclusion of a dramatic RfA in which a sonnet appeared (drum roll please) that wasn't mine. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I read the RfA talk page you're referring to , but I don't think I saw the sonnet. I'll have to check again and see if it's on the main RfA page. Is it any good? Bad poetry is a much bigger problem than unreferenced BLPs IMHO. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll find you the diff, but it's in the green box under question #13 (cool, huh?) Quality? The composer has not written PR77's 1000, but it is beautiful. Proofreader77 (interact) 20:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm... Sort of a sonnet haiku with lots of wikilinks? Is that allowed? A for effort. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
A-men. (But questions have been raised about the "men" part. ;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 20:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are my ears burning? Oh, shoulda guessed. Now, I'm off to create Category:Poetaster Wikipedians. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to buy a pair of ear-fire-extingushers (like ear-muffs, but with CO2 cartridges. :-) But, ah no,

No poetry allowed! (serious LoL)

Rhetorical verse. Hmmm ... I'll have to ponder categorization before pontification. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Priceless (Doc blocked himself LoL)

  1. (Block log); 03:53 . . Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) unblocked "Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs)" (oops, out of process block)
  2. (Block log); 03:36 . . Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) blocked Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (out of process deletions )

Dayewalker

Your warning here is rude and without base, given that first, anyone can comment on any RFC and second, the diff you cite was not made by Dayewalker. Please be more careful in the future.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The correct diff can't be edited in due to erasure. We'll deal with this at Arbcom in due course. Proofreader77 (interact) 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation of "discussion interference" (CoM RfC talk)

(All diffs to come) Proofreader77 (interact) 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Warnings (given) for "discussion interference"

(additional diffs may be added) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 04:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Related issue - editors acting while claiming to be on wikibreak

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation of ANI (after incident was concluded)

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 1 weeks for edit warring on an RFC talk page. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. MBisanz talk 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
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).

Proofreader77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I have already responded at ANI before this block was issued: "Incident concluded. - The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom.)" SO: Improper block for a resolved matter - Notice: last edit to RfC talk indicated documentation for Arbcom.

Decline reason:

Trying to "illustrate the problem for Arbcom" is not a valid excuse for edit-warring at and disruption of an RFC. Abecedare (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

The "improper reverts" were undone by you three times. That is edit warring. MBisanz talk 05:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted 3 instances of "discussion interruption" (yes, a matter for Arbcom to address) for purposes of documentation for ArbCom. Proofreader77 (interact) 05:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The existence of old revisions negates any claims of exception from the edit warring policy for presentation of material to arbcom. MBisanz talk 05:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Interference with legitimate comment in (and on) an RfC is not protected as a legitimate edit. Interfering with such comment is the equivalent of vandalism (and will be so discussed). As I said, I reverted it 3 times to illustrate the problem for Arbcom. Proofreader77 (interact) 05:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
See documentation in previous topic (Including warnings for "discussion interference")

Documentation of "discussion interference" (CoM RfC talk) Proofreader77 (interact) 05:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Note - Edit summary of administrator Jayron32 in recollapsing" - "(Bring it...)"

Comment: A schoolyard taunt, not appropriate for an Wikipedia administrator's action.-- Proofreader77 (interact) 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notation for 3rd parties

Improper hat/hab closes (disrupting discussion) are vandalism.

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is "fitting" that User:Abecedare declined the unblock,

... since they have previously performed [similar] discussion interruption (at AN)-- Proofreader77 (interact) 06:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding COI of administrator declining unblock

Edit summary of my edit on unblock declining administrator regarding previous matter

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 06:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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).

Proofreader77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(I usually only make one unblock request, but since this is for one week let's get this done correctly without taint of COI) REASON FOR 2nd REQUEST: COI of administrator declining unblock. See Revision as of 20:52, 21 December 2009 - Proofreader77 (→You beat me to respective talk: COI revert? (consider) - Given my comment discusses your actions in choosing to shut down the conversation (rather than, e.g., block discussion-disrupting premature closer), ... perhaps other should revert)

Clarification of issue: Not edit warring when undoing vandalism (which collapsing a legitimate comment on the talk page of an RfC is.)

(Repeating initial rationale) Request reason: "As I have already responded at ANI before this block was issued: "Incident concluded. - The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom.)" SO: Improper block for a resolved matter - Notice: last edit to RfC talk indicated documentation for Arbcom."

Clarification: The fact that I reverted the improper collapses 3 times does not mean I was making a point by doing something wrong. Vandalism (which includes improper hat/hab collapses) is not bounded by 3RR — but I undid the improper actions and issued 3 warnings as part of legitimate documentation of a problem.

Decline reason:

You were actually edit warring on an RFC page. I agree with the blocking admin and the previous admin who declined your request. It's unfortunate that you chose to do this, perhaps this block will be something you bare in mind in the future. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

You're completely missing the point. Again. It was not vandalism to begin with. WP:VANDALISM classifies vandalism as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. That is clearly not the case here, as various editors agreed your comments were disruptive, and hatted the section appropriately.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
And you're completely missing the point, honorable Daedalus969, that a group-think designation of speech which "they don't like" as disruptive rather than we don't like to hear that is precisely what cannot be collapsed to remove from sight. That kind of collapse is vandalism of the public discussion area, which I am referring to as: "discussion interference"

I assure you this is a serious matter, and I strongly advise all editors involved in this incident (3 of whom were warned on their talk page), to consider their actions and rationales well.

BOTTOM LINE: Since I had already posted at ANI that the incident was concluded, it is also clear that the block is not intended to prevent continuing anything, but a punitive act. Proofreader77 (interact) 07:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You can argue that it is vandalism all you want, but that doesn't make it so. Wikipedia has a very strict definition of vandalism, and that is not vandalism. Further, I can guaranty that you are not going to be unblocked you keep pointing fingers at other people. Consensus is that what you did was disruptive. Why do you think you were blocked? Try reading WP:NOTTHEM, then, if you so choose, attempt to re-write(or request another if this one is declined(it wasn't at the time of this posting)) the current one, explaining how your behavior was wrong and why you won't do it again, rather than pointing fingers at others. You were blocked for your own behavior. Not theirs.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
We have reached an impasse, honorable Deadalus969. We have each expressed our positions, and they are incommensurable.

(From the position of rhetorical analysis, I will characterize your position as the usual defense of constraint of speech the group does not like ... and the usual assertions about "blaming others" ... for which there exist reasonable replies which many may find persuasive. We shall see.)

We now await an administrator to rule on the current unblock request. Our debate at this stage is concluded. Good evening to you, Deadalus969. Proofreader77 (interact) 08:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... What would Google think? -- Proofreader77 (interact) 10:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Request for uncollapsing of Proofreader77 comment on talk CoM RfC

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice of email sent to User:Nihonjoe (who sealed CoM RfC)

Copy of email sent toNihonjoe - Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM (GMT-8)
Copy of your message to Nihonjoe - Wikipedia e-mail - Note - Improperly collapsed "Motion" on CoM RfC

Please inform the RfC evaluator of the (I assert, improperly) collapsed comment at the bottom of RfC talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/ChildofMidnight#Motion_to_nullify_RfC_.28procedural_fouls.29_aka_What_would_Google_think.3F

(I will be submitting a request for Arbitration regarding such "discussion interference" - i.e., it is improper to hide comments that some do not like. )

Sincerely,

BOKE www.boke.com

(Note my full real life identity is provided on my user page)

Nihonjoe's summary of CoM RfC


-- Proofreader77 (interact) 09:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Nihonjoe to (collapsed) motion by Proofreader77

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 09:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions regarding "the incident at the close of the CoM RfC"

  • Who created the drama in this "incident"?
  • Who were the editors who created the impression that Wikipedia is problematic with respect to speech?
  • Why did anyone feel it was necessary to collapse the motion by Proofreader77?
  • Why did anyone feel they could collapse the motion by Proofreader77?
  • Why was Proofreader77 blocked?
What would Google think?

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 09:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PS/Coda ("socialization")

Hmmm: Tonight's talk page debate card: ...
The well-chastened vs the un-repentant?
OR The cows vs the cowboy?
See also: Wikipedia Western (musical)

Amen. Selah. Next stop ... Proofreader77 (interact) 09:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

[stuff removed. sorry, these are links to copyright material, the ones I checked were hosted without evidence of permission Guy (Help!) 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)]

Notice - RfAR preparation in progress

If you have issues regarding recent events, save them for the appropriate public forum. Discussion here is concluded. Proofreader77 (interact) 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Note,

I am now pushing for your indef block at ANI, I suggest you answer my inquiry about you stalking my edits, as that is what you are quite clearly doing so above when you mention my most recent interaction with Gwen.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice to third parties

Check Proofreader77's edit history. Determine if Gwen Gale's talk page is likely on Proofreader77's watchlist. (Also check the history of Gwen Gale's talk and see if Proofreader77 is discussed there.) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Calming down would be good, someone is blocked, leave them alone, wiki and utube take copyvio very seriously and as far as I can see there was no problem with what was removed, the content had been on utube for long time and was not a copy vio, proof is blocked for a week, move on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ya, right. Even if it was, you have no good reason to mention my interaction with her in this at all.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Harassment? Oh right, your harassment of myself. All I was doing was trying to help you, and you turn around and throw it in my face.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

Is there a reason you are attacking my trouble with a template? If you really are attempting to build an RfAR case, I would suggest you leave such non-relevant material out of it, as it will only work against you.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd Notice - RfAR preparation in progress

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 22:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Barnstar re Child of Midnight RfC

The Socratic Barnstar
For bringing humor and surrealism to an already unintentionally humorous and surreal situation. For this and your long history of engaging in the Socratic spirit of humorously acknowledging idiocy when you see it, I award you this barnstar. They made him drink hemlock, the worst they can do to you is issue a block. That's 2500 years of progress for you. Trusilver 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Most recent barnstar re comments at RfA

The Original Barnstar
For an excellent analysis of the distinction between adminship and content creation. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI $1,000 donation to Wikipedia

For those who do not know, I recently donated $1,000 to Wikipedia (and yes, Jimbo knows) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding discussion to lock this talk page (during RfAR prep)

During RfAR preparation? Interesting. Proofreader77 (interact) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation will continue here.

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 23:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Outline of the RfAR

Three improper blocks

(to be continued)

Some historical notes re Proofreader77 account context (for RfAR)

Real life identity

Note: Response to CoM RfC ANI by Proofreader77 (the first) one minute before block

Reminder: Barnstar re CoM RfC

The Socratic Barnstar
For bringing humor and surrealism to an already unintentionally humorous and surreal situation. For this and your long history of engaging in the Socratic spirit of humorously acknowledging idiocy when you see it, I award you this barnstar. They made him drink hemlock, the worst they can do to you is issue a block. That's 2500 years of progress for you. Trusilver 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Scope of RfAR - category: "online bullying"

(documentation in progress, links/refs to come) Proofreader77 (interact) 01:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPAOWE

The BLP dispute is much wider and more interesting than I first realized. It has an enormous cast of characters that would make Akira Kurosawa proud. Interesting stuff, strange bedfellows, all kinds of intrigues and subplots. Fascinating stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've lost count of all the Arbcom cases ... And did you see Doc blocked and unblocked himself. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 00:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I just read about that somewhere. I think a couple other admins did something similar? Craziness. Too many threads to keep track of though. The code word, apparently, is sisyphus which definitely shouldn't be confused with syphilis. I think it's fairly safe to assume that sexual activity plays little if any role. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Excuse my long-delayed response, CoM. Much ado is doing. :-)

At the moment my attention is directed away from the fascinating (horrifying? exciting?) events regarding BLP deletion ... so I can't say anything profound about that right now ... but I can say that what you said just now ... is so perfectly wonderful in your unique way ... that it makes my heart sing (while the eggs are scrambling) Proofreader77 (interact) 06:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(ANI notes)

False allegations of "stalking"


Rebuttal
  • Note: Administrator Killiondude edited my page and left a message. At that point I added User:Talk Killiondude to my watchlist.
  • From my watchlist I came to know of Daedalus969's message there regarding the documentation on User talk:Proofreader77.
  • Note: I have never looked at Daedalus969's contributions.
  • Daedalus969's accusations of "stalking" are an attack on Proofreader77
  • Comment: The ANI was resolved by an administrator who was aware of the situation (Nihonjoe). Daedalus969's continuing the matter has a basis that will be examined in the context of the RfAR.
    -- Proofreader77 (interact) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhetorical analysis of improper warning (and improper documentation refactor)

See diff above to observe refactor on which allegations are based


Rebuttal (in progress)
  1. "Please disengage"
  2. "From purposefully"
  3. "using your talk page to annoy Deadalus969"
  4. "You have better sense than to do this."
  5. "Unfortunately, if you continue this behavior"
  6. "then I'll have to lock your talk page."
  7. "Please re-consider what your intent is.
  8. "I've modified your summary of the events (above) so that it isn't particularly insulting to Daedulus."
[IN PROGRESS]

3RR (exactly 3RR)

Do not overlook that Proofreader77 executed 3 reverts (and gave 3 warnings)
Do not overlook that Proofreader77 responded 1st at ANI indicating the incident was concluded

Other problematic issues with this block (and aftermath)

Was there any COI issues in the initiation of the topic by Cirt?
Why is Daedalus969 so involved in this ANI (reopening what was resolved)?
Do not overlook that the RfC was closed and summarized by Nihonjoe (and Nihonjoe did give a response to Proofreader77's "motion to dismiss" - and Nihonjoe marked the ANI topic resolved (which Deadalous969 un-resolved).
Be aware the issue of patterns of "online bullying" will be an aspect of the issues for the RfAR
The documentation of Daedalus969's actions are a significant aspect of the post-block events (category - Socialization to patterns of online bullying)

Advisory: Notice of documentation and analysis of all messages posted to this page during RfAR preparation

Attempts to misrepresent this documentation and analysis as anything other than proper preparation for dispute resolution will be treated appropriately in forums to come

(ArbCom News) Motion regarding BLP deletions

Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding BLP deletions


(Proofreader77 (interact) 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

Response to email

Copy of email from Proofreader77 to MBizanz
Copy of your message to MBisanz: Wikipedia e-mail: Suggestion - Change block rationale to DE
Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Note: 3RR is the limit. Not breach.

I reverted hab/hat closes 3 times - and gave 3 warnings.

I.E. It wouldn't have gotten me blocked at AN/3.

SUGGESTION: Unblock and reblock immediately with corrected rationale: DE.

NOTE: I have no previous blocks for edit warring. I did not break 3RR this time. (I will be submitting the 3 blocks in a group in the RfAR. The rationale for the first two is DE - the last should be as well.)

I strongly believe in getting details correct. I'm very disciplined: see warnings for each block, and my immediate response at ANI (one minute before your block) saying "incident concluded."

BOTTOM LINE: I was not guilty of "edit warring" in any case. Let's get the allegation most appropriate. You have my assent to correct the block log, and if you wish me to put some message on my talk page saying I have requested it, I will gladly do that.

Kindest regards,
BOKE
www.boke.com

NOTE: (1) Yes, I really gave $1,000 to Wikipedia during recent appeal, and yes, Jimbo knows. (2) I am making this suggestion to you for both our benefits. (3) I regret this incident interrupted my attempt to volunteer for OTRS, I believe I would be of use there.

[Adding copy of email above: Proofreader77 (interact) 23:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)]

In response to your email:

1. I blocked you for edit warring, not for 3RR, edit warring does not require a breach of 3RR to be blockable. So I will not be changing the block rationale.

2. Feel free to take me to Arbcom.

3. I'm glad Jimbo knows you gave $1,000 to the WMF; I sit on the board audit committee and have actually met Jimbo, none of that means anything to our actions on Wikipedia.

4. Veiled threats or blackmail really don't affect me.

5. Being blocked at enwiki does not prevent you from applying to join OTRS at m:OTRS/volunteering.

MBisanz talk 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brief reply to response to email: Other than #3 [#4], thank you, MBisanz. I'll provide the copy of the email below shortly — and others can judge if there is a "veiled threat," or an indication of support for project which is not a secret.

Regarding OTRS: I believe there is a rule about "in good standing" or something, but I'll check. My impression is that I could not volunteer there while blocked here, but I will follow-up.

Note: The RfAR will cover three blocks (my only ones) ... which I have received since giving $1,000 to Wikipedia (a fact with which I conclude with a smile of many colors. :-) Cheers.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Note - comment at OTRS by MBisanz

Question

I've noticed you keep throwing out that you've donated 1000 dollars to Wikipedia. That's great! What are you hoping to accomplish? In a case like a unblock request it is really Ignoratio Elenchi and with the Arbcom it comes off as argumentum ad baculum. Try to avoid these and you're next unblock request might be more successful. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi HIAB,
(1) There will be no further unblock requests. NOTE: The email was not an unblock request but a request to change the rationale from "edit warring" (incorrect, I assert) to "disruptive editing" (which is more flexible in interpretation).

(2) The RfAR I am preparing covers 3 blocks ... all AFTER the $1,000 donation — so you can consider the $1,000 donation as both (a) a gesture indicating my support for the project which all should know — symbolic marker of the fact that the case I present will be regarding a general problem Wikipedia faces of which my 3 blocks are indicative, and ...

2(b) There is an amusing aspect that my first block was not, as perhaps you know best, based on my responding to you in one topic, but rather for talking about giving $1,000 in another topic for which I had not been warned.

SO: Perhaps you can see why the $1,000 is not about bragging or anything negative ... but a central data point in the events. My first block was for giving details in "a creative story of giving." (Not arguing with you. LoL)
Cheers. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 06:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to nullify RfC (procedural fouls) aka What would Google think?

{{hat}}

My (admittedly unusual, but rhetorically intentional — not to mention barn-star winning) comment was removed (twice, and discussed above). Its removal indicates a prosecutorial bias which taints the entire cluster fuck [community discussion].

While this motion may be met with the same assumptions of "unseriousness," I assure you, I am quite serious. As was my twice-removed rhetorically-complex comment.

Big picture: What would Google think? Let it be noted that Google has recently said it would walk away from the 1.3 billion people in China because of matters related to freedom of speech. How would this RfC appear to Google if presented as a "case study" of Wikipedia community discussion regarding participatory speech interaction. Would not the response to this RfC be "What the fuck are they doing?"

It is from that perspective which I made my own addition to the discussion — which the discussion would not tolerate. Sounds like a serious matter of something going off the rails with respect to the idea of what "community" means (if, in fact, that is the best word for the collective wisdom of this collaborative project).

Proposal: Let this RfC be closed with a note of "oh my, too much, let us think better about what we're doing next time." Or other words more suitably fuzzy.

I repeat: What would Google think? Act accordingly. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(Response interaction to be evaluated by rhetorical analysis)
Cliffsnotes; user adds worthless crap to an ongoing attempt at dispute resolution. Worthless crap is removed several times. User claims the entire dispute resolution is a failure due to removal aforementioned worthless crap.
Yea... Tarc (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
For all that care, this was the statement twice removed. It speaks for itself. Carry on. --Jayron32 03:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the whole Google's opinion being more important than yours, idea. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 03:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
DNFTT, guys. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Truly ridiculous beyond all prior charted levels of ridiculosity. I suggest this be closed as an argument magnet, and ignored. Dayewalker (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

::Ah, a personal attack. Aspersion of "troll." (Add to the "Powerpoint bullet" file :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 03:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Reminder: Barnstar re CoM RfC (rhetorical sonnet+comment)

The Socratic Barnstar
For bringing humor and surrealism to an already unintentionally humorous and surreal situation. For this and your long history of engaging in the Socratic spirit of humorously acknowledging idiocy when you see it, I award you this barnstar. They made him drink hemlock, the worst they can do to you is issue a block. That's 2500 years of progress for you. Trusilver 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dates of $1,000 donation (12/23/2009 - 01/02/2010)

Trans Date Post Date Type Description Transaction Number Amount

01/02/2010 01/04/2010 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... $700.00

12/29/2009 12/31/2009 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... $200.00

12/23/2009 12/24/2009 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... $100.00

Indefinite block for giving $1,000 to Wikipedia? (LoL)

Comment

You could not make this stuff up. :-)Proofreader77 (interact) 08:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing agitation for indef block (category - Socialization of online bullying)

Advisory: Notice of documentation and analysis of all messages posted to this page during RfAR preparation

Attempts to misrepresent this documentation and analysis as anything other than proper preparation for dispute resolution will be treated appropriately in forums to come

(Note to ANI) $1,000 donation to Wikipedia was given 12/23/2009 to 01/02/2010

Trans Date Post Date Type Description Transaction Number Amount

01/02/2010 01/04/2010 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... $700.00

12/29/2009 12/31/2009 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... $200.00

12/23/2009 12/24/2009 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... $100.00

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So a $1,000 donation given 3-4 weeks ago is to be the basis for an indefinite block now?

No, I believe you're taking that the entirely wrong way. It, however, would not be a reason to unblock, which seems to be what you're trying to get at by bringing it up. Grsz11 16:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Copy of email from Proofreader77 to MBizanz
Copy of your message to MBisanz: Wikipedia e-mail: Suggestion - Change block rationale to DE
Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Note: 3RR is the limit. Not breach.

I reverted hab/hat closes 3 times - and gave 3 warnings.

I.E. It wouldn't have gotten me blocked at AN/3.

SUGGESTION: Unblock and reblock immediately with corrected rationale: DE.

NOTE: I have no previous blocks for edit warring. I did not break 3RR this time. (I will be submitting the 3 blocks in a group in the RfAR. The rationale for the first two is DE - the last should be as well.)

I strongly believe in getting details correct. I'm very disciplined: see warnings for each block, and my immediate response at ANI (one minute before your block) saying "incident concluded."

BOTTOM LINE: I was not guilty of "edit warring" in any case. Let's get the allegation most appropriate. You have my assent to correct the block log, and if you wish me to put some message on my talk page saying I have requested it, I will gladly do that.

Kindest regards,
BOKE
www.boke.com

NOTE: (1) Yes, I really gave $1,000 to Wikipedia during recent appeal, and yes, Jimbo knows. (2) I am making this suggestion to you for both our benefits. (3) I regret this incident interrupted my attempt to volunteer for OTRS, I believe I would be of use there.

Noting "Suggestion" (by Proofreader77 to MBisanz in email):
Response to Grsz11:

WHAT the email suggested was to change rationale for block from "edit warring" to DE.

WHY would this be "beneficial to us both"?

Note: I (Proofreader77) stopped at 3RR undoing improper hat/hab closes (while issuing 3 warnings but receiving no warning myself) AND responded first at ANI "Incident concluded" (one minute before block)

Note - Proofreader77's blocklog

  • 05:19, 21 January 2010 MBisanz (talk | contribs) blocked Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Edit warring)
  • 21:57, 8 January 2010 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) blocked Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Disruptive editing)
  • 23:03, 29 December 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Disruptive editing)
Why would changing block rationale to WP:DE be beneficial to MBisanz?
BECAUSE

(a) Proofreader77 was not (and has never been) guilty of "edit warring."

(b) Proofreader77's two previous blocks were for WP:DE, and if you're going to escalate to one week block, then the rationale should be the same as the 1st and 2nd instance.

I.E., it will look better for MBizanz to have given the rationale "disruptive editing".

Why would changing block rationale to WP:DE be beneficial to Proofreader77?

So I don't have to waste time in the RfAR explaining all this (again).

Three blocks for WP:DE is what the RfAR should be about.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 17:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revisions - how it works in German wikipedia

Hi Proofreader, you asked on my German talkpage about my experiences with flagged revisions in the German wikipedia. Well, they are positive. Visible vandalism decreases. How it works? Anyone can make changes, but changes become visible to anyone when accorded by a trusted editor (Sichter). Otto (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Otto. I can understand the idea of one person making a change that does not become visible until a Sichter accepts the change ...

BUT what if five people made changes (to the same paragraph) that were not visible? I would presume they are editing a copy of the currently published version, but their changes are made not knowing the changes the other of the five have made. How would the software and the Sichter determine how the edits of the five take effect (if they were conflicting).

LoL Yes, that is probably a very rare situation, but I know of highly contentious articles where certain paragraphs might well have several pending (conflicting) changes — and I find it hard to imagine what the Sichter would be looking at when they accept the edits.

But perhaps I'm thinking too hard. When flagged revisions finally (?!?!?) implemented on .en Wikipedia I will understand much better. (But I do know that some of the software programmers for Wikipedia have voiced concerns about how confusing the editing window for flagged revisions is).

But perhaps it will be as straightforward here as it has been in Germany. Again, many thanks for your response.

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 10:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no such conflicts because when editing, you always edit the current, possibly "unsighted" revision. The "sighted" revision is just what is shown by default (to anons and users who have not changed their preferences). Anyone can always click on "Entwurf" (draft) and see the "unsighted" version. --Tokikake (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
And thank you, Tokikake. So there is a "Entwurf" (draft) tab(?) to see the "unsighted" version ...

Question 1: When an editor who is not a Sichter clicks the edit tab (whatever that is called in German), is it true they would automatically be editing the "Entwurf" version ... and wouldn't that be confusing to new editors who would expect to be editing the version they had (by default) just been looking at (the "sighted" revision)?

Question 2 When the Sichter reviews (?) the page in order to make the Entwurf version the sighted version ... (a) does the Sichter see all the changes that have been made clearly highlighted (in red?) ... and (b) if there are multiple changes that have been made to the draft/Entwurf version, can the Sichter approve just some of the changes (and how does the Sichter choose which ones to OK) ... OR is it "all or nothing"?

Note: I can imagine why some programmers for en. Wikipedia were complaining the interface was not easy to understand. But you are telling me it is straightforward (and I do not doubt that is true for you). In any case, my sincere thanks for your perspective.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 11:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Proofreader77, I happened to be passing by here because I appreciated the sentiment of your CoM RfC poem. ;-) I work on the German side as well and like the system very much. Here is how it goes. If an article has last been edited by a user without sighting privilege, an extra "Draft" tab appears right next to the "Article" tab, and the label on the "Edit" tab changes to "Edit draft". What users see when they go to the page depends on whether they are logged in with a user ID or not:

  • A logged-in Wikipedia user will see the Draft tab version displayed, not the article tab version. Next to the article title, it will say "Unsighted version".
  • An IP user will see the sighted version on the Article tab displayed. In the top right of their window, it will say "sighted" (and there is also a hyperlink they can use to go see the current draft version).

Anyone (Wikipedian or IP) who clicks "Edit draft" sees the diff between the last sighted version and the current draft version displayed above the edit box, just like you do here when you get an edit conflict on a page. To see what this looks like, here are a couple of pages which (at the time of writing) have drafts with unsighted changes: [9][10] Try looking at, and editing these pages, both logged in, and logged out; that will give you a feel for it. ("Entwurf" = Draft.) Another useful thing is that if one of the pages in your watchlist has an unsighted change to it, the page will appear with a red exclamation mark next to it in your watchlist, as well as a "sight" hyperlink. Clicking on "sight" displays the diff between the current draft and the last sighted version, and if the changes are good, you can "sight" them, after which they become part of the article and the draft tab disappears until the next user without sighting privilege makes a change.

If a Wikipedian edits the draft and some changes in the diff display are not good, they just delete them in the edit window, keep the good changes, and save. As they save this new version, the kept changes are automatically sighted. --JN466 22:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bless you, JN! And thank you for pleasant noise about the CoM sonnet ... Excuse my slow reply — sonnets generate high overhead. :-)

I am now studying the wonderfully presented information above, and experimenting. When I've got the hang of it, I'll reply some more. Again, my most sincere thanks — this is exactly what I needed to know. Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 01:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: @JN ... I'm still not clear about the case where there are several edits to be reviewed. It seems to show you one diff with all the intermediate revisions for example, one intermediate revision here.

Question: Does the Sichter see something differently in terms of reviewing the changes? What I'm asking is, how can they OK individual changes, rather than all the changes at once (which is what it looks like to me). Note: I presume I'm not a Sichter. LoL
--Proofreader77 (interact) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A sighter sees the same diff that you saw. If they don't like some of the changes shown in the diff, they have to go into the edit box and manually take them out. Once they save, the version they save is sighted. It is only ever article versions that are sighted; not individual edits. Sighted article versions are shown to the outside world.
Of course, in many cases, there will only have been a single edit made to the article when the sighter comes to it. If that edit was good, the sighter can just sight the new article version without editing the text at all. This is kind of like "sighting" or, to talk English, approving an individual edit. But even in that case it is really the new article version that is marked as "sighted".
Sighting just means, a Wikipedian has looked at this article version and certifies that it does not contain any gross vandalism or BLP violations. The number of edits that led to that version is immaterial.
Sighting privilege is relatively easy to get on the German Wikipedia and is no big deal. It is granted on the basis of a user having made bona fide contributions. It can be withdrawn from users who vandalise articles and is not given to accounts that have only just registered. --JN466 16:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again, Jayen466, I think I've got it. And the "it" I've got ... still leaves me with concerns about the case of several edits having been made to the draft before a Sichter comes to sight/review it.

I understand I may be constructing cases that don't happen very often, but I am pondering the case where someone comes and edits the draft ... making perhaps ten good edits in the draft version ... THEN perhaps a vandal comes and makes several junk edits that are scattered about the page.

Then I consider what would happen if I was a Sichter coming by ... with let's say 20 intermediate edits to be sighted, but I cannot believe many Sichters would attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff (manually clean up the bad edits) ... but would rather simply revert all the changes (good and bad) rather than try to weed out the problems.

COMMENT/QUESTION: RC patrol is so much simpler in terms of one-edit-to-consider at a time. But let me ask the question this way: Question: Does German Wikipedia still have WP:Recent changes patrol (and do you have any insights about how that works with Flagged revisions).

Last question: ) Has vandalism nearly disappeared since flagged revisions have been in implemented in German Wikipedia? -- Proofreader77 (interact) 00:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The "20 intermediate edits" scenario really doesn't happen very often. I had trouble finding any articles with unsighted changes at all, to give here as examples. Here is the German Recent Changes page: [11]. Articles requiring sighting are marked by a red exclamation mark; I believe recent changes patrollers do that job too. As a Wikipedian, you see the draft versions by default, so it really feels just the same as before. But as a member of the public, you are clearly spared a lot of garbage. The vandalism still happens, but the public does not see it. --JN466 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, bless you, JN. It seems I'm thinking too hard. (I tend to plan for "the worst case scenario," no matter how low the probability — which is somewhat worthwhile if you might be eaten by a great white shark, but perhaps less so if it's just the possibility of multiple intermediate edits in a draft/sighted version of an article. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 05:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_07&oldid=1163899220"