|
|
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| </div> | | </div> |
|
| |
|
| == FP post == | | == Working out the new and old == |
|
| |
|
| Hi! Did you not read through my post right before yours at [[Thread:206566]]? I was trying to stress that we '''cannot allow self-sourcing''' and we have '''no way of knowing for sure that these posters are who they claim to be''', and you've undone that by giving them validity (to quote your words: "the FP authors in this thread"). I (and the few other active admins) have had to deal with a lot of activity lately regarding our distinction between valid and invalid, and it doesn't help at all to have an admin (especially one who hasn't edited in a long time and might not be familiar with more recent policy decisions) come in and completely undermine our efforts. I suggest you read the policy and forum thread I cited since they are apparently new for you. Thanks. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:28, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
| | I'm also still finding my way around, it's strangely like the old days of the wiki (even saying stuff like that reminds me how long I've been editing on the wiki!). Everything seems to work similarly, but I think there'll need to be a review policies etc, now we're not under the auspices of those over there, and just a lot of historical stuff that's come and gone. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 00:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
| | |
| :Sorry, no, I did not see your post before mine. I started a reply a while back, and was interrupted before I finished; you must have posted while I was dealing with my sleepless daughter.
| |
| | |
| :I can understand the objections to self-sourcing, but I can also personally verify that the authors in question are who they say they are. At least, they are posting on [https://www.facebook.com/stuartamdouglas/posts/10155614226059502 Stuart Douglas' Facebook page] that they have commented in that thread.
| |
| | |
| :Anyway, not intending to undermine anything. I just thought that the views of the authors and publishers were relevant to the discussion. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] [[User talk:Josiah Rowe#top|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:50, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Fwiffhader ==
| |
| Hey :) Happy new year to you as well :)
| |
| | |
| I'm of course not happy to block anyone. I genuinely ''hate'' it, and haven't done it in over two years. As I think you'll remember, the general amnesty and retirement of '''every ''single'' block''' we did back in 2013 was one of the best things I think the wiki ever did.
| |
| | |
| That said, blocking is of course sometimes necessary, particularly when basic civility is under attack. And this specific block was arrived at as a part of a discussion amongst myself and other admin. It wasn't a unilateral decision at all; I was sorta just the one who got tapped to write it up. It takes into consideration the fact that other infractions of the policy were not met with any punitive measures, and that he was effectively put on probation already by Shambala108's comments on both his user talk page and within forum discussions. As the block notice makes clear, there's not just one violation of [[T:ATTACKS]] here, but several.
| |
| | |
| Moreover, the fact that three separate users of this wiki called his allusion to fascism "hate speech" compelled action where none had previously been strongly indicated. Look back on his user talk page, and you will find one user particularly mortified by the comparison. Honestly, this comment was there very much earlier in the year, and my initial reaction was to just let it slide. But if ordinary users are clearly morally offended by it, then isn't it the responsibility of admin to stand up for them? I mean, don't we have a duty of care to make sure users won't have to put up with this sort of mean-spiritedness?
| |
| | |
| We'll look at it some more over the coming days and weeks, but when you count up the number of infractions and imagine a situation where each one had been separately and progressively punished, you get to a year pretty quickly. It doesn't ''feel'' like an outrageous length. But I'm not saying we can't still talk about this, obviously. So please continue to leave messages if you have more say. :) {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 07:05: Mon 02 Jan 2017</span>
| |
I like to keep conversations together. If you leave me a note here, I'll usually respond here. If I've started a conversation on your talk page, I'll usually check your talk page for a reply. (There may be exceptions, but that's the general pattern.) If a conversation jumps between pages, I'll often copy it over so that the whole thing appears on one page.
Working out the new and old[[edit source]]
I'm also still finding my way around, it's strangely like the old days of the wiki (even saying stuff like that reminds me how long I've been editing on the wiki!). Everything seems to work similarly, but I think there'll need to be a review policies etc, now we're not under the auspices of those over there, and just a lot of historical stuff that's come and gone. --Tangerineduel / talk 00:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
