User talk:Prodego

PGP Key Archives Sandbox

May 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 31 hours, for violation of WP:POINT. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I have unblocked Prodego this block was a blatant abuse of admin tools. James (T C) 00:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I will allow arbcom to handle this, please let me know if I'm needed. Prodego ^talk 00:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A Resignation might be needed. I hope you can take this upon yourself rather then go through a full arb case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

On that, I disagree. This would be an entirely non-controversial block if Tan were not an administrator, and I've dedicated myself to treating everyone with the respect that they deserve long ago. It is not just to treat people differently because of their positions, everyone is equal, until their actions prove otherwise. Be that in a positive or negative way. Prodego ^talk 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You really should be resigning now, you have managed to hound another respected editor off the encyclopaedia. The fact you still have the power really concerns me. Though we all know you don't do this, so I guess it'll be left to the arbs. Jeni ^(talk) 15:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly did not 'hound' anyone - I made a single block for repeated personal attacks, whereas hounding would be repeatedly joining conversations that another user participates in to harass them. As for my 'power', I'm not sure what that would be. I have no more 'power' than any other editor, although perhaps a bit more experience than some. Prodego ^talk 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really necessary to block him was it? From the discussion I have read, a word in his ear would have been plenty IMO. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No block is absolutely necessary, we can always live without them. But this was a long term pattern of abuse for which Tan should know is unacceptable (and he had received warnings for such in the past: [1] [2]). At some point one does have to enforce warnings with blocks. Prodego ^talk 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is perfect. It is a shame imo to have lost an experienced editor over this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is, and I am sorry to hear Tan made that decision. Prodego ^talk 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see....

....Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tanthalas39 unblock. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment at the section above was misthreaded. It does not appear to be directly related to the comment I made above yours; perhaps it needs to be moved for clarity? --Jayron32 14:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The reply was to User:jæs but it was moved down due to edit conflicts. Prodego ^talk 15:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps move it there then? It makes it look like you were talking to me directly, and so is a bit confusing. Jaes may not have connected your response to his comments, so it may not be reaching the intended audience. --Jayron32 15:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Hopefully no one objects. Prodego ^talk 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

• Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia

• News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news

• In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why unprotect Bird, though it is TFA WP:NOPRO states: "Pages which are already indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism are generally left protected while on the Main Page". Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if someone wants to improve it, it seems like a good idea to let them. :). Generally the TFA isn't protected. Prodego ^talk 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

17 hours protected, an IP (perhaps a vandal) say "Is not this the Encyclopaedia which anyone can vandalize?" and you unprotect it though NOPRO has a clause, it's crazy. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to improve an article, why wouldn't we let them? Prodego ^talk 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

An article with indefinite semi-protection generally don't need to be improve, but well it's your decision, but please protect it when it is out the Main Page. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Because, barring one small edit, every edit made by anonymous IPs since you removed the protection has been vandalism. And I notice that you've been conveniently offline pretty much since you removed the protection, so it hasn't been you who's been reverting that vandalism. (Thanks, by the way, for increasing the tedious work the rest of us get to do.) Can you at least semi-protect it again tomorrow, so we don't have to spend hours for the rest of the week correcting all these great "improvements"? MeegsC | Talk 17:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Current practice is to keep the TFA unprotected while it's on the main page, and reinstate any previous protection afterward. While this may soon not be the case, Prodego is hardly at fault. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My antipathy of WP:NOPRO is hardly a secret and I apologise for bringing the argument here, but that guideline says that article which are indefinitely semi-protected shouldn't be unprotected simply because they're on the Main Page. I understand why you unprotected it and I'm not in the business of apportioning blame, but if an article has suffered from such endemic vandalism that it has to be indefinitely protected, it's probably not a good idea to unprotect it just as it becomes the most visible article on WP. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism takes about 1 second. Improving an article takes far more time, and as such a single good edit is easily worth a few dozen vandal edits. Looking at Bird, it has been protected a long time and based on the very small amount of vandalism (for the TFA) while it was unprotected, the protection should probably be removed. I remember back when semiprotection was 'invented' - the idea always was that it would not be used to prevent editing except when needed, and would always be reevaluated to ensure it is still needed. Its a pity we have moved away from the idea that everyone should equally be able to edit. Prodego ^talk 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Well, sorry for lashing out at you (If you want to call it that. I was more assumeing bad faith rather than lashing out) I do agree with the de-sysoping of Tan and your initial block was apparently in line with policy (wither I like it or not) sorry for dragging this on longer than it needed to. Hope you forgive that and I'll see you around :) (Likely not though unless you take a sudden intrest in U-boats but hey...)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's no problem, I can understand how these sorts of 'drama-loaded- situations can raise some heated opinions. While I do strongly assert my block was well within the NPA policy, However, there is plenty of room to criticize if it was the best action possible under the circumstances. I'd be happy to discuss why I choose to take that particular action, if you'd like. Barring that, happy editing! Prodego ^talk 05:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. I hate long drawn out discussions like this. I'm through with this huge mess :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to the English Wikipedia

I'm writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation to let you know of some upcoming changes to Wikipedia. On May 13, we will be changing the the default skin on the English Wikipedia to Vector instead of Monobook. This change may affect some gadgets and extensions, so I wanted to let you know as you appear to be the author of/involved with one of the most widely used gadgets on the English Wikipedia. For further details, please check out the post on Village Pump.

Thanks!

Howief (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Abusefilter-private

Removed. -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

• From the editor: Reviewers and reporters wanted

• Commons deletions: Porn madness

• Book review: Dan O'Sullivan's Wikipedia: a new community of practice?

• Wikipedia books launched: Wikipedia books launched worldwide

• News and notes: Public Policy and Books for All

• In the news: Commons pornography purge, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Birds

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia malamanteau controversy

Just FYI, this article was at AfD. I already speedied it for the same reason you did, but the creator came complaining that the article didn't technically meet the speedy deletion criteria (it had an attempted claim to notability, albeit a bad one, and unreliable sources is not in of itself a criteria for speedy deletion). He was technically right—I had been IARing to delete it since it was so obvious what the consensus would be—so I restored it and figured it wouldn't hurt to let the AfD run its course (most likely, within a few hours it could be SNOW deleted anyway). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am the original author of the Wikipedia malamanteau controversy article. After it was speedily deleted, I addressed the issue with the admin who deleted it (as seen above), who admitted that it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and thus, gave me permission to rewrite the article. I have rewritten, and added a considerably amount of information to the article, and intended to recreate the article, however, the article is now protected, and I can not post the new version.

Further, what justification do you have for creation protecting the address? I have yet to resubmit the article once, thus, the use of creation protection seems a bit premature and draconian.

Thanks, 8bit (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)