Wikimedia-logo-meta.svg
This page can be found at en:User talk:Pigsonthewing
This is an interwiki redirect.
Archive
Archives

Community engagement survey for the Iceland Conference 2018Edit

Hello Pigsonthewing,

As your username is indicated in the list of the members of the Commons Photographers User Group, you are kindely invited to answer this survey in the order to shape the upcoming Iceland Conference 2018 and help the organizing team.
Thanks! --Dyolf77

  User Group page |   Leave a message to the user group

How to deal with PolesEdit

Hi. You are more than welcome to join in the deletion discussion on Meta:Requests for deletion#How_to_deal_with_Poles, but please try to refrain from overriding the community processes. --Base (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The community procrsss decided that such repulsive material was not acceptable a long time ago, so please try to refrain from overriding it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 Which community process are you referring to? There is an ongoing RfD now. --Base (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Consider this your warning: You will be blocked if you engage in such behavior. — regards, Revi 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't specify any behaviour, so your post is impossible to comply with. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, was about to write that, but ECed. Stop the vandalism - emptying the page in question. — regards, Revi 17:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't specify any vandalism, so your post is impossible to comply with. Furthermore, I refute your allegation of vandalism, utterly. Nor have I "emptied" any page. Yours is every odd behaviour for an admin; doubly so for one who claims to work for the WMF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You know what I mean, stop playing with the words. My employment doesn't relate to any contribs under this account. Thanks. — regards, Revi 17:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't make head nor tail of your ridiculous posts. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

MetaEdit

I didn't post much of the following on this wiki; it has been moved here by another editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have made an error on Meta:

18:38, 6 June 2020 TheSandDoctor talk contribs blocked Pigsonthewing talk contribs with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Removing content from pages)
Please fix it, asap. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I will answer this here, but for future please direct any meta related questions to meta (e.g. ping on your talk page with a Q) as this is outside the scope of enwiki or any other wiki. No, everything was working correctly, with the exception that indef was too long for a first block. I have adjusted it to 2 months. If you have further questions, please direct to your meta talk page. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I asked, and have, no questions. It was clearly an error, or rather several, on your part:

  • infinite length bock, per above
  • there was no removal of content from "pages" (plural); you have now repeated this false claim
  • removing content from a page (or indeed pages, had that been the case), in the process of rewriting it, is not in itself a blocking matter
  • no prior warning, or indeed any attempt to discuss
  • no post-block notification on my talk page.

Please now fix these egregious errors, by removing your wholly unwarranted block, with a summary that acknowledge the errors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As I have said, please take this to your meta talk page. I am copying this over there and will respond in turn. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • indefinite length was corrected
  • the plural form is templated. If you want a third entry in your block log, I can most certainly make it singular. I don't have a problem with that.
  • you refused to accept consensus as was evident by your repeated edit warring
  • "no prior warning, or indeed any attempt to discuss" really? You were not only warned once, but twice yet continued anyways, almost immediately after the full protection was removed
  • "no post-block notification on my talk page." meta doesn't even have a formal blocking policy. Talk page notifications are not required here nor necessarily the norm; even if there was, that does not somehow invalidate the block being placed...it doesn't work that way on enwiki nor here
Based on the fact that you were warned, have been demonstrated to appear to ignore the consensus/your conduct, and have seemingly pretended to not understand the fact that you were warned (if this were enwiki, that would be best described as en:WP:CIR. However, given that you are an enwiki TE, I say you have pretended as you clearly have competence) this is hardly an "unwarranted" block. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Please examine the timestamps of the three diffs you cite (and the content of the former, which in no way constitutes a "warning"), and then retract your further false allegations; and remove your wholly unwarranted block, with a summary that acknowledges your errors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi @TheSandDoctor:. I am surprised by the heavy handed way you've dealt with an editor who removed content that he feels is offensive. Saying something is funny doesn't make it so, and I too feel the content is offensive. But at the same time, you did not warn the editor before you blocked, or did I miss this. I don't see that a warning, by some other editor, as helpful, in a discussion that is contentious nor should such a statement by an editor, and not the blocking admin, constitute a warning, You, did not warn Andy. Whether Meta has a blocking policy or not seems hardly the point. You are a Wikipedia admin and understand the grounds for blocks. I hope you're not suggesting that Meta's lack of guidance on blocks leaves the door open for anything an admin wants to throw at an editor. This is not about whether META has a block guide but about whether an admin has the background to administer a block fairly. And you do. Further, edit warring even when content is offensive while not the best way to deal with contention, is not generally considered blockable behaviour. I don't see consensus on the talk page, and your comments to the editor suggest he is dishonest when you say he " pretended". That constitutes a personal attack. I'm sorry but this seems a big rush to judgement in a situation where more discussion could have been helpful. Andy seems upset by the article and its tone and content. Isn't it your job as an admin to discuss this rather than rush to block. I hope you'll reconsider your action here. Best. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you were more than warned, by two different users, not to keep up your behavior. Instead, you decided to double down and say the warning wasn't really a warning, when it was, and edited the page yet again as soon as the protection was lifted. The RfD gave a consensus to keep, with Polish users defending that the page be kept, while the page is also linked from multiple user pages of Polish users. From there, we can draw the conclusions that 1) Polish users do not think the page is offensive and 2) you have no consensus to modify the page to your liking. The block was justified, even if the previous length was not. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Who are you addressing? Littleolive oil (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
If Tks4Fish thinks I was "more than warned, by two different users", I invite them also to examine the timestamps of the three diffs cited by TheSandDoctor (and the content of the former, which in no way constitutes a "warning" and which was posted by an 'involved' admin). I'm also concerned by the implication that a page kept at RfD cannot be modified. Their insincere apology is not accepted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I can't say that I am an ardent defender of Pigsonthewing at all, but this block for what is basically edit warring is disproportionate, even with the new length of 60 days. Maybe 3-7 days, but 2 months is way too much. --Rschen7754 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder about this Rschen. This reminds me of a arbitration case where an editor was accused of wrong doing and a suggested block was advised. Lo and behold there was no blockable offense, but instead of removing any kind of sanction an arb suggested a lesser block. So with no offense why was any block possible? Littleolive oil (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
While you can see how I voted in the RfD, the consensus is that it is not a violation of policy, and this is clear edit warring against consensus. --Rschen7754 00:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think short block will change him, with the arrogance he has shown above. As we see, he started the disruption as soon as the protection was lifted, so I can safely assume he will simply wait for the short block to expire and then try the infight again. My mistake would have been not blocking on first sight — and I would have blocked similar length (min. 1month) to meaningfully prevent disruptions on this wiki. — regards, Revi 00:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You can't block based on an opinion about the future... after two reverts. And the blocking admin did not warn. Two reverts and a month long block because you think he's arrogant. Is "possible" arrogance a blocking offense. It's not and you all know it. Maybe you don't like the editor and maybe you don't like what he did. But it's not blockable. No admin has been given this kind of power. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is the context?Edit

I arrived here from the blocking admin's talk page, and am rather surprised about the reason given for a block which was indef first as "removing content from pages", - something I do on a daily basis, and often find necessary when content is bad. What happened? Where's the offense? Who is involved? Is there a block review or just this chat? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I am providing the following explanation to provide a brief overview to those sincerely interested in the situation, that being said I must note that this is not a "block review", there is no such formal process on Meta-Wiki. Blocks are issued on admin discretion rather than following a strict formalised policy here.
In general, there are a lot of valid cases where someone might remove content from pages. In this case, though, we are talking about the editor replacing the content of a page despite an ongoing RfD, which at the moment of the actions was already indicating a consensus towards keeping the page as is. Their action was cancelled with proper explanation by an admin, MarcoAurelio, only to have the editor repeat the action supplemented by a retort in edit summary. Their action was then cancelled by me, also an admin, and a warning and an invitation to the RfD was issued. The editor referred to unspecified "community process … a long time ago" and revered my edit to the page. Lest the edit war continues, but RfD participants have clear overview of the page in question, I have decided to soft-mitigate the situation by linking to a permanent version in the RfD, which was supported by another admin, -revi, soft-blanking and protecting the page for a day. The following day, the RfD was closed by yet another admin, TheSandDoctor, as "keep" and the original text of the page was restored, the protection was lifted. Mere 3 minutes after this, the editor again replaces the text with his own version. This was rolled back by -revi and another warning was issued. Instead of accepting the situation, the editor resolved to sophism pretending he does not understand what is going on. The situation was reëvaluated by TheSandDoctor and the block was issued. The user then further worsened the situation by bringing the block discussion to English Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with Meta-Wiki and which is not watched actively by most of the participants of the situation (my home wiki is Ukrainian Wikipedia for instance). The block was loosened though as the result of the discussion now moved back here.
To sum this up, we have and edit war with 4 admins, despite a community consensus, and while not joining in the discussion to influence the consensus. I think this quite adds up to what you'd call WP:POINT on Wikipedia, but on top of that this is crowned by general sophism and inappropriate attitude here on talk page and an attempt to move the discussion elsewhere. --Base (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Base, but I am disappointed to read a thorough explanation of your view, instead of pointing me to the article in question. - Also, can we agree that the reason given for the block was poor, whether true or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Base: How to deal with Poles (the section right above this also relates). --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand we deal with something that is supposed to be humurous ("How to deal with ..."), and some don't think it is. I have little time, so hopefully you will understand that I didn't read all the above, nor that strange humour. Can we break things up a bit.
  1. How can we deal with users who write abbreviations as an edit summary, such as HTH. WP:HTH is no help. My take would have been to request explanation on the talk, unless it is a reason to remove something that needs to be removed.
  2. "This racist content is contrary to WMF policy." is an edit summary I would have understood. It explains that the content HAD to be removed, and why. It could have ended there, no? An RfD plays no role if something is against policy, right? Or enlighten me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of falsehoods and misinterpretations in the long screed posted above by User:Base. Meanwhile I await a response by TheSandDoctor to my post above, which I repeat here for clarity: "Please examine the timestamps of the three diffs you cite (and the content of the former, which in no way constitutes a "warning"), and then retract your further false allegations; and remove your wholly unwarranted block, with a summary that acknowledges your errors." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the diff timestamps. Not sure what I am supposed to notice? Everything looks as expected/they are in chronological order. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Here are the timestamp of the three diffs you cite, numbered in the order in which you present them, and which you now claim "are in chronological order" (emboldening mine):

  1. Revision as of 12:59, 5 June 2020 (again: not a warning)
  2. Revision as of 17:46, 6 June 2020 (supposed warning)
  3. Revision as of 17:45, 6 June 2020 (my edit)

(I note also that you omit intermediate diffs, including my responses to the former; and the one where I was falsely accused of "vandalism".)

This repeated misrepresentation - if indeed it is accidental - is especially remarkable from someone who has invoked "CIR".

Now, for the fifth time of asking, will you please fix these egregious errors, by removing your wholly unwarranted block, with a summary that acknowledges your multiple errors? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

...tumbleweed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request June 2020Edit

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: Per the above; note that TheSandDoctor has not responded in a week. This block is preventing me from using both the WMF URL shortener and my Wikipedia Library account, both of which are hampering my outreach work on behalf of the Wikimedia movement.
Unblock reason: hard block seems unreasonable. Extended blocking of a valuable community member without some consensus unreasonable, especially where there is the ability to restrict editing while there are functional alternatives.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This template should be archived normally.


English | español | français | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

Hello. Now that the RfD regarding How to deal with Poles has been closed - are you done editing that page? Without unraveling the rest of the discussion above, it appears your block was solely related to that page - so if you are going to stay away from that page the block seems to be moot. — xaosflux Talk 19:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
If that's what it takes then, under strong protest, I won't edit it again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I wasn't trying to build an 'unblock condition' - just was trying to get you moving again with the other issue you mentioned - even if that other issue still needed follow up, in any case you are already unblocked now so never mind. As far as that page goes, I suggest you propose future changes on its talk page if you are interested in further developing it. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 14:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
So am I prohibited from editing that page, or not? I note that TheSandDoctor has yet to acknowledge his errors, much less apologise, or correct them. And there is no retraction in my block log. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that there are some clear indications in the above statements that should be guiding you. Do you really want the community to formally discuss this matter?

You can deal directly with TSD about your concerns, that doesn't need our intervention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And I am absolutely certain that my question, like my request that TheSandDoctor address and rectify his own errors (which he has yet to address), is perfectly clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

barnstarEdit

  The tireless cybernetic contributor Barnstar
thank you for your tireless contributions.Slowking4 (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)