User talk:83.42.147.18

Recent edits you made have not been considered constructive by your fellow contributors. Please use the sandbox in the future if you wish to test something. For a description of the type of content that we do allow, see Meta:About. If you have questions about this, or need help, feel free to ask on my talk page. Thanks.

-- Wutsje 21:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 31 hours for blanking requests for closure pages. You may request unblock with the {{unblock}} template if you so wish. NW (Talk) 23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I have been blocked under the following reason "Disruptive editing: Blanking closure processes without discussion."

I am not sure what is considered "disruptive editing" in Meta but if you check ecial:Contributions/83.42.147.18 my editions, I was blanking nothing (only hiding, with a valid reason and clear notes on how to revert it) and, if you read my discussion with Wutsje and the reasons in the comments on my edits, clear cues for starting a discussion (a thing that has just been barred by now) about the topic was there. I do not consider seven easily reversible edits a good reason for a 31-hour block. I fail to see see how it can help. Thanks for your attention. Regards. --83.42.147.18 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)}}

The line of the block log is this: 23:07 . . NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked 83.42.147.18 (talk) with an expiry time of 31 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: Blanking closure processes without discussion)

Now that the block is over

I am 83.42.147.18 under another IP (my IP is dynamic and I do not know how to get back to it but I am sure that you can check the range, origin or whatever it is necessary to see what I am saying is true). When I gave NuclearWarfare an explanation about what I thought it was wrong in the reason he had used for the block he just said he was not really willing to unblock. Just that, not further explanation. That implicitly means that "I was still guilty of "blanking" pages and of "being unwilling to discuss". Imho both things are blatantly inaccurate and anyone can check about it in my edits (none of them have been deleted, at least not yet) if I am wrong I would like to know why. Anyway, meanwhile, I personally do not take offense (I was ready for a short block anyway; 31 hours seems to me unnecessarily and excessively long for my "fault", though) but I consider it just insulting all the same and I would like that kind of reaction or lack of info never happened again in cases like this. I think Wutsje or NuclearWarfare never really paid attention to what I was doing, never AGFed just because "things happened fast" (I am certainly guilty of that). Maybe they felt I was being pushy (in certain degree I was, I am as well guilty of that) but things could have been done more smoothly and we could have found a quick agreement to solve the problem I was trying to solve. Then nuclear warfare happened and that was it because seemingly there were no other admins available or willing to review the block in the 31-hour period of the block (that is why I crossed the "for your attention" bit in my request). Now that the fall-out is over I think here substance was overruled by mere form. There are a few other possibilities but I do not think wise even to mention them. They just said "the topic should be discussed" but they do not seem to know "what" should be discussed. An example: we can (and should) discuss specific bits about them but there is nothing general to be discussed about "vandalism", "trolling", "deference", etc in the Wikimedia projects: vandalism and trolling are not accepted, deference is desirable and encouraged, etc. That is it and any sensible user is rightly happy with it, because they are just common sense and useful for the projects. Seemingly Wutsje and NuclearWarfare are happy with anybody proposing for the closure of a project but for them whether the project involved should or shouldn't be informed is "something that has to be discussed." I thought Meta aimed to fairness. And silence is so fishy but I guess people were busy choosing the logo or just tacitly calling me troll by not "feeding me". The problem for Wutsje and NuclearWarfare were my ways but they did not do anything about the topic: if they ever tried to start "those discussions" publicly during the 31 hours I have failed to see. They did not have to, of course, but if I would have been in their shoes I certainly would have done it (I am an admin and, by default, an user as well... but lately I find my extensive IP experience especially interesting to see "the other side") even if I were not interested in the topic. In a nutshell: I see this as an interfere-because-of-cosmetic-grounds-and-then-wash-hands case. A lot of time lost for both them and me and nothing really solved. Anyway Now that I think I have a solution (not the best though because two users, so far, find it unfeasible). I will just clearly inform the proposals that the projects involved do not seem to have been properly informed. I hope that will not deserve a 31-hour-or-longer block. Regards. --83.38.111.120 11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue was that you were mass hiding discussions at a rapid rate, and making no attempt to gather a consenus for doing so. If you wish to start a discussion on either Wikimedia Forum or the talk pages of those proposals, and wait to see if there is general agreement for your action, you are welcome to do so. NW (Talk) 12:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I never got a direct warn from you before your block. You do not mention anything about the length of the block. And fairness to projects involved in closure proposals should not be negotiable in a place like Meta. You could just have told me to stop and change my ways. Even mini-block me to explain yourself. You never did.Regards. --83.38.111.120 12:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Blanking and hiding are two totally different things with totally different connotations but now this IP will always have te stamp of "having been blocked for blanking". What you call "mass actions" involved only 7 pages. And about opening the discussion: what for? It has already discussed/adopted in a few places, seemingly to no avail now. You like others discuss plain common sense, I do not. It is just a loss of time. Actually, that argument just seems to me a plain excuse to dodge the crux of the problem. Regards. --83.38.111.120 12:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Template

The following is a related discussion I had with Mike.lifeguard. I copied and pasted from this edit and further ones in order to get the topic less dispersed. --81.33.193.68 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have just seen that you recently deleted Template:Lacking announcement. Should not have been wiser just to modify it just to be informative and adding it a category so that all the those proposals lacking proper announcements to the projects involved were easily found? In that way Meta would avoid to repeat hugely embarrasing situations like the ones that happened with, for example, the Tamil projects proposed for closing. And, more importantly, it would be only fair. I meant to create such a template right now but, seeing the atmosphere here, I prefer to ask you for permission. Regards. --83.38.111.120 11:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Lacking announcement is important as well in order to avoid mistakes. In Proposals for closing projects, a warning saying "Warning: If you propose a project for closure, please then add a local announcement as well, or the request will be ignored. Thank you" can be clearly read. Well, after that message was added (by a steward), almost nobody informed the projects involved when the opened new proposals but several projects were closed or tagged for accepted closure all the same without paying the slighlest attention to the aforementioned warning. That is why Template:Lacking announcement was created, not only to avoid unfairness but as well blatant sloppiness. If it seems too "aggressive" in its original form, it can easily be modified into what I mention in my previous message. --83.38.111.120 13:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no need for it in any form. Instead of blanking pages, you should inform the communities in cases where that hasn't been done.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems I have not explained myself clearly. I mean the template only to be used as a banner to inform and to collect those pages in a category. Anyway, if hiding (why people keep on saying I was blanking? There is a relevant difference) the discussion was the/a problem, it could have quickly and easily been solved by removing the <!-- --> and by making a few text changes in the template but, seemingly, nobody has thought of it for quite a long stretch of months and you just opted by plainly erase hour's useful work (locating the pages with the problem takes a while) for some reason only you and a few others know. I think you or anybody else should not have a problem about being informative in the pages involved (I expect such a basic thing does not need consesus or does it?). Can I have a go later under your or somebody else's supervision? Regards. --81.33.193.68 16:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC) (Aka -83.38.111.120, new IP, sorry)

By the way, I have personally informed quite a big bunch of projects but I am on-line only occasionally and they were too many. Anyway should not that be firstly be done by the one who proposes the closure or even by any other user around as well (for some obscure reason, a not very popular bit of help among usually helpful Metapedians)? --81.33.193.68 16:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, whoever proposes closure should notify the relevant wiki(s). If that isn't done, someone else should do it. It is far more useful to do that than to blank the page.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again on the blanking topic? Good, I now doubt you have read my messages to you, or maybe it is just my rubbish English's fault, but OK, never mind, I can clearly see you are not going to be of any help on the topic so forget about it. Fortunately there are more people in Meta. Thanks anyway. Regards --83.37.162.253 13:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC) (Aka -83.38.111.120, new IP, sorry)

You can call it what you want, but the effect is that the page is blank (well, except for the template) when you're done. That's not OK.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 05:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And once again on the blanking topic? If that was wrong (something it cannot be checked by most while the template is "conveniently" deleted, I must add) you already "fixed" it so why is that bit of past becoming for you the center of what I say ? Is that the only or main thing in what I wrote and asked you or it is just your way to dodge the helpful bit? You have never said why the merely informative option I proposed is not helpful in a place like Meta. Anyway, as I said I'll seek others' help when I have some time to spare so do not worry too much. --81.39.199.51 16:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (Aka -83.38.111.120, new IP, sorry)

---