From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

(unnecessary decorations and markups are excluded)


This page contains the discussion below about a user block. If you need some more discussion, use note of this page and do not edit this page.

Caution: If you are reading this page because you tried to submit a user block request, modify the link to the request like {{Wikipedia:User block request/User name (date)}}, then create a new page. On the new request page, make the link to the old request page, so that you can refer the discussion in tha past.

As the result of the discussion, it is decided as User block for 3 months, + indefinite.

Because she exposed the real name (supposed to be the family name) of User:Miya and User:Miya.m at User talk:Miya, and in addition, she did not make any proper action after that.

Ms.Aphaia described improperly in these edition: 9/1/2007 7:24, 9/1/2007 7:27, 9/1/2007 7:44 (all UTC). The description had been removed at 9/1/2007 10:03 (UTC) by Ms.Aphaia herself [1], but in the past edition, still there IS the personal information and it is referrable from the history. So, "proper action" as said here is that she would submit the deletion request of the user page to stop the outflow of the personal information. I myself submitted the deletion request of the user page. Even though she has written something like apologies on Mr.Miya's talk page [2], still, Ms.Aphaia who defaulted on the proper action is worth being blocked, I think.

In addition, discussing about the exposure of personal informatinos, a user named User:大谷まこと(Otani Makoto) exposed the personal informations of Ms.Aphaia and User:Tietiew which resulted as indefinite user block in the past. The action by Ms.Aphaia this time is just as same as one by Otani Makoto as long as on Wikipedia. Based on the basis of equality, I think that it is appropriate for Ms.Aphaia to be blocked indefinitely such as Otani Makoto.

I usually take a stance that I never trust "apologies" only with words but without actions ,not completed as "apologies", so I emphasize that she did not take any proper actions, I assert the indefinite block of Ms.Aphaia just as the warning at first [3]. In addition, this is the forth time in this year that Ms.Aphaia made a trouble, and it indicates that she is an exhausting user. Of course, this is only my personal opinion, and some people would protest like "It should be the definite block considering that she had apologized ritually" or "It is not necessary to block her", so I would be glad if those people would express their opinions here.

I am expecting your opinions.

discussion 1[edit]

  • (for) by the requester. User:Yassie 9/2/2007 Sun 01:41 (UTC)
  • (comment) Tell us 3 troubles in 4 of this year not including this time. And, Ms.Aphaia is not guilty. --User:Futamata Taro 9/2/2007 Sun 01:58 (UTC) I strongly wonder that he tried to comment though he only edited 3 times. --User:Kemonomichi 9/2/2007 Sun 04:39 (UTC)
    • (comment) I don't understand the comment "Ms.Aphaia is not guilty", anyway, the 3 troubles not including this time are follows;
      1. At 4/4/2007 11:38 (UTC), she regarded a user as a vandal from her personal emotion, and requested the user block not based on user block policy.
      2. At 4/15/2007 13:14 (UTC), she requested the user block against a user account which had been unblocked based on the agreement by more than 20 users in the community, not asking the community through the proper method, but requested the user block personally on a Sysop's talk page. [4]
      3. At 6/3/2007 14:02 (UTC), on her talk page, she deleted the critical comment against herself purporting to "delete a vandal". [5] After that, some users reverted, but repeated to re-revert with intimidations and made it a revert war. In addition, considering the past background including these issues, I determine that she doesn't have dialogue capability. User:Yassie 9/2/2007 Sun 02:23 (UTC)
  • (comment) To determine if being exposed the family name means the expose of the personal informations, I want to hear the opinion from Mr.User:Miya and Mrs.User:Miya.m. User:Ciro 9/2/2007 Sun 02:55 (UTC)
  • (close the discussion immediately) In this case, the apology and the acceptance have been formed. The community should not have a part in interrogating personal things such as privacy any more, so that stop the discussion immediately. In addition, user block requests which this requester submits are suspicious to be from private hates, he had better respect himself. --User:Hatukanezumi 9/2/2007 Sun 03:39 (UTC)
    • (against immediate close) For comfirmation, I would like to hear opinions from the victims. --User:Monaneko 9/2/2007 Sun 04:10 (UTC)
      • (caution) I think we'd better not ask comment from the victims. Because, it means that you make them explain whether the information described is correct or not. (In addition, as the victims, even if it is so, by a comment like "It is not our family name. So we don't care at all" can be a good method to limit the extent of damage). --User:Nekosuki600 9/2/2007 Sun 11:21 (UTC)
    • (against immediate close) Mr.User:Yassie understands that apology had been taken place, then, expecting for opinions, so we should not close this discussion. And, though you say "private hates", the requestee also applies it about "3 issues" listed by the requester, I think. --User:Gotobeido 9/2/2007 Sun 06:25 (UTC) adjustment--User:T.Saito 9/2/2007 Sun 23:29 (UTC)
  • (for) I don't know if they know each other off-line, however, it is a lightheaded action. She seems to join the activities in The Foundation aggressively, but when such person makes this kind of trouble, it cannot be exemplary (feeding more for personal informations vandals). It might be rather gentle, but I would say 1 month block. --User:Monaneko 9/2/2007 Sun 04:10 (UTC)
    • (comment) Addition. Unexpectedly there seem to be many vote for indefinite block. I have written "1 month", but I do not vote against middle/long term, indefinite block. Just in case. --User:Monaneko 9/5/2007 Wed 13:06 (UTC)
  • (comment) The action by Ms.Aphaia is absolutely lightheaded, and it did good to vandals, she has been acting with ignoring the community, so she must be banned, I feel. But on the other hand, Mr.miya made a wrong response on the matter which caused this issue, and his qualification for sysop may be doubtful. In addition, I myself do not express yeas or nays about banning. I feel that we are required to discuss really carefully, because the requestee of this matter is the one, so it would be possible to be expanded for a big issue also on Meta or other projects. --User:T.Saito 9/2/2007 Sun 08:23 (UTC)

To be continued...