User talk:The undertow/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 13


FPA Sri Lanka

In your block of FPA Sri Lanka (talk · contribs), you left as the blocking message, "Vandalism: Really teh suck." This was brought up on the unblock-en-l mailing list and we are unsure what happened here. While the user was clearly using Wikipedia for promotion and probably had an inappropriate username, we are not sure why you used the message, "Really teh suck", for blocking. The consensus seems to be that this was inappropriate. Perhaps we are missing something. If so, could you explain it? If not, could you please consider different block messages in the future? I hope you don't feel that I am attacking you, just looking for clarification. --Yamla (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The mailing list has a consensus? The mailing list sucks even more than the user who was insistent on spamming the wiki with promotional bullshit - which is the consensus that 'we' have gathered. In the future, I will not use the word 'suck' in my block summaries, even if the user really does suck. It's going to be tough, and I feel that the sin of omission is just as bad as lying, but nevertheless, the last things I want in life are cancer or to piss of someone on a mailing list. Haha. This conversation is teh suck, too. the_undertow talk 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest that while we all respect WP:IAR, applying it to WP:CIVIL may not be the best way to approach things like this? --Chris (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt apply anything to civility, as civility is a good rule. I didn't ignore civility on purpose - I erred. My block summary was wrong and I admit to that. However, the mailing list is still bullshit and anyone who comes here under the pretense of being the messenger of all that is mailing list consensus really fails to interest me. the_undertow talk 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, unblock-en-l was only involved because the user complained about your block message. If you had not made the block, it wouldn't have been involved at all. Secondly, unblock-en-l is staffed almost entirely by admins, and so a consensus of (in this case 3 different admins) that this was a problem is just as important as if the decision were made on-wiki. If you have any suggestions to make unblock-en-l not suck, as the Wikipedia catch phrase goes, I am certainly listening. Prodego talk 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It sucks because you have to actively sign up for it. It sucks because it is not public. It sucks because users and actions are scrutinized by others and are eventually told after decisions and 'consensus' have been reached. This issue should have been taken to ANI where everyone could see it. Then I could apologize for using the word 'suck.' "Vandalism: Really teh suck." I didn't say the user sucks in my edit summary, I said that vandalism is really the suck (see use of colon as punctuation). Next time I would like to be afforded the luxury of an ANI or RfC or something that is public instead of IRC, a mailing list, or an in-game World of Warcraft tribunal. the_undertow talk 23:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with having it public are that users IP addresses are contained in the list, which we want to try to protect. Actively signing up for it goes with that, we get a lot of mail, and don't want to just shove it on new admins. It is not as if we decided, as a group, to 'punish' you, some admins just agreed that they would like to ask you about it. Consider it a first step, deciding to ask, but instead of individually, they asked as a group. Prodego talk 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A group of people who are talking in private? This all seems very sophisticated. And I'm sitting here laughing because I tried to sign up for the list and received my rejection letter: Civility is very important when responding to blocked users, and there are concerns there. Where's the logic in this? How many complaints have I ever received about incivility? None. And I don't need a list to help with unblocks, I can block or unblock without the list - you do realize this, right? I was asking to join the list simply so I could see the thread that started this dialogue on my talk page. So basically, it's not about IP addresses, it's about choosing who can and cannot be on this list. So tell me, as the list that publicly denounces cabal-like behavior, I find it odd that I cannot join because of my civility 'issues.' Does anyone at this list have any instances where my civility has been an issue here? Can someone simply mail me the thread where I am being discussed? Is that too much to ask? Does this mean I cannot get the Signpost either? Perhaps the Jehovah's Witnesses will stop bringing me the Watchtower as a result of this mystical list of admins... the_undertow talk 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you have pretty much demonstrated the problem pretty well in that last message. The mailing list allows users to get a fair review, which you seem to have some trouble with. You should also be aware that I am the one who rejected that subscription request, after discussion with Keith Old (one of the other two list admins), and John Reaves (one of the moderators). And do not forget the second part of that message, that your request was malformed. There is that email link to explain yourself. I have also sent you the emails (to chip [at] leavethehouse [dot] com, I assume this is where you want it?), as you requested. Prodego talk 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem being that I am not, nor have never been satisfied with the idea of a mailing list? Or my tone, which sarcastic, but not incivil. In any event, I'm glad the power that be have decided to send me the thread - which was all I was looking for in the first place. And as we end our session, if you are going to imply that I have a problem with a fair review, you should provide some evidence. The block was just - the summary could have been better, but was not directed at the user. I want to see where I am lacking in fair review in my administrative actions. It's not polite to throw accusations one someone's talk page - but how ironic that you would admonish me for my lack of fair review when you have shown poor character yourself. Where is the evidence of my lack of fair review? Why don't we just put our cards on the table or are you more comfortable keeping them on a list somewhere? the_undertow talk 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's remember to AGF please. There is no cabal deciding your future or anything of the sort. Your sarcasm suggests that you think there is some conspiracy trying to "get you." Nothing of the sort. Someone simply asked for clarification on your block message and pointed out that it might not be civil. The "you vs. us" tone in this whole discussion is uncalled for and is not helping advance the discussion. --Chris (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, please don't do the uppercase letter thing. How did you get to this talk page? The list. How did others get here? The list. Can I join the list? No. I don't think that anyone is out to get me, and the last thing I fear is a list that may or may not amount to nothing more then some hens clucking about this or that. I think you are assuming too much good faith there. I have never made it a secret that I despise the idea of a moderated mailing list. I have always despised it and have made no bones that active participation is these lists shows extremely poor character. You mentioned conspiracy, not me. I simply pointed out that I find moderated lists secretive and elitist, tried to join and then was denied 'membership.' Shit, it's almost like the listers could drive home the point even better than I can. Here's the logic going on at this list: User undertow finds this list deplorable due to its private nature, so what we will do, in good faith, is deny him admission. Haha. It's a circus, but I really don't mind a good sideshow. the_undertow talk 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Recap: This started because Prodego states the user complained about your block message. An email of the complaint from Prodego (prodego [at] gmail [dot] com, since we are apparently posting email addresses on my talk page now) shows the user stated: I just started uploading a new article to wikipedia & i have not edited any other articles. Only thing was i was having trouble changing the default picture in The Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka' tried many times to upload a image. Please assist me to continue updating the article about the organization. Thank You.

So, in short, my tone may be construed by incivility, but at least I'm honest. The user never complained about the message, but about the block itself. To say otherwise would be to lie. the_undertow talk 02:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had toyed with posting my concerns with your block message here, but decided not to "pile-on" until you had an opportunity to respond to the first concern (which, after all, IS the appropriate way to handle it in my opinion: to talk to users before taking it to ANI.) In my opinion, the block message - a couple of messages that you left - were inappropriate for an admin. Do they rise to the level of taking it to ANI? Probably not. Do they need to be discussed with you? Absolutely. I made a conscious decision to not take it to ANI. I thought you might respond positively to a nudge from a couple of fellow users. I also thought that a single message to you might be more effective than several from several people, so I told the admin who left the message (on the mailing list) about my other concerns with your block messages. I'm sorry you disagree with the way that we handled it, but I think it was appropriate, and I stand by my decisions. - Philippe | Talk 03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So what I am hearing is that you are from 'the list' too? You guys griped and listed and talked and then confronted me. No big deal. Did Prodego lie in his initial assertion about the user's concern? Yes. I see that as a big deal. All this 'we, we, we' is creeping me out. I wish you guys would show more transparency but you have to keep the list private because of IP addresses? Is that correct? Not all wikipedia lists are private, are they? Maybe the public lists use some form of communication where there are no IP addresses. I'll tone down my edit summaries, and you guys can go back to your little list and pass judgment about others and then decide that when you have enough safety in numbers, or when someone happens to get around to it, that you'll drop a note on a userpage from 'us,' telling the user that a conversation about them has been going on without them. the_undertow talk 04:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The undertow, frankly your behavior DOES rise to the level of requiring an RFC or AN/I report. You're being a bully to blocked users, exhibiting inappropriate behavior, certainly unbecoming of an administrator who is supposed to comply with ALL of our rules including WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. We're freaking lucky that the user only complained about the block, and not your outrageous behavior. Don't be a dick. As for the unblock-en-l list, it's a volunteer list of admins answering complaints from users about unblocks that is entirely separate from the unblock template on Wikipedia. I don't know why you didn't get on the list, but based on your behavior that you have displayed in this action. Not just one inappropriate block message, but an ongoing series of inappropriate block messages. Instead of finding ways to belabor the point and argue more about what you perceive wrong with the unblock list, why not say "You're right, I'm sorry, I screwed up, it won't happen again."⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you on the list too? Hiding behind the dick essay is the same as being incivil, you do realize that don't you? It's like saying 'if I wasn't so civil, I would call you an asshole.' It's semantics. Did you just seriously say I have a history of innappropriate unblock reviews? I've never done an unblock review in my life. How are policy blocks bullying? Do you really have any idea what you are talking about? I'd be interested to hear. the_undertow talk 04:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm amused. In your RfA (for which I !voted in your favor), one of the things you discussed was your sense of tact. The following are messages that I do not believe are tactful.
08:35, 19 February 2008 The undertow (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "FPA Sri Lanka (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ? (Vandalism: Really teh suck.) (Unblock)
08:34, 19 February 2008 The undertow (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Bombass coochie (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ? (May have a bombass coochie, but it's inflammatory (i burn)) (Unblock)
Philippe's Comment: Yes, I see that he's responding to the username, and frankly, I chuckled at this one.
02:08, 17 January 2008 The undertow (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Nick1996 nick (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ? (Vandalism: For being a waste of carbon) (Unblock)
11:50, 1 January 2008 The undertow (Talk | contribs | block) protected User talk:Tenkasei Ryo ? (as an admin, this guy is teh suck. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (Change)
These are from only the last six weeks or so. I didn't look any further. Without going into the cabal insinuations, or creating straw-man arguments, can you honestly tell me that you think those are appropriate? Nobody's trying to "get" you. We're just trying to raise a bit of constructive feedback. - Philippe | Talk 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


First one, inappropriate - I admitted to that. Second one - uh, it's about banning a Coochie, and you laughed, as it's obviously not inappropriate to say a Coochie is inflammatory. Third - Nick1996 - blocked for an edit of julia allia grandorf is cool. i stalk her ill rape her and kill her. Yes, this user is a waste of carbon. Absolutely. Fourth - Tenkasei - blocked for stalking another user. Already mentioned at ANI but the consensus was that the user did indeed 'suck.'

Three of four were justified edit summaries. I have no patience for rapists or stalkers and no need to show them civility in an edit summary. the_undertow talk 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of the blocks. none Any of them. I disagree with the summaries that you left. As far as I can see, your actions are absolutely right in policy and dealt with distateful situations all. But even the distasteful ones deserve reasonable block notices. For a host of reasons, I encourage you to remain professional with the block summaries - even when the user doesn't deserve it. Again, I have ZERO problem with the actions; just with your wording. Not that it matters, but I would endorse every one of those actions. By the way, I should add: this situation has been resolved to my satisfaction. I think my point has been made, and don't see any point in continuing to beat the horse. If you want to continue discussion, I'm happy to, but don't feel that it's necessary to respond if you don't want to. - Philippe | Talk 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I said above that I'm not going to fuck around with block summaries any more. But now this issue of an ongoing series of inappropriate unblock reviews should be put to bed. I have never done an unblock review and wouldn't know how to do one if I tried. And being a bully to blocked users? How is that possible if I've never declined a review request? The gang of listers on this page should use that list to coordinate stories because there is a plethora of misinformation on this talk page, starting with the incorrect assertion that the user was upset at the block summary. the_undertow talk 05:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The unblock reviews was a mistake. The correct term was an ongoing series of inappropriate block message. It does not change the inappropriateness of your behavior. As for being a bully to blocked users, if you can't tell how saying "You are a waste of carbon" is bullying to a blocked user. No matter what the blocked users do, we as admins don't EVER stoop down to their level and trade insults back. You should know better. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't 'know better' because I did nothing wrong. The user who planned to rape and kill a named victim deserved a much worse summary. "Waste of carbon" was as good as it gets. I will never offer an apology for that edit summary. I'm not as sympathetic as you, but as far as stooping, I'm not concerned about that. You should know better. the_undertow talk 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh please. Have you never seen a threat on the internet? It's more than likely some bored kid acting out. Even still, it does not excuse abuse in any case. I'll leave it at this: Don't do it again. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And I'll leave it at this, the issue is dead, the consensus is in, and you come here to tell me how to act AFTER it's been said 42 times before you? Don't be such a pussy. It's fun to hide behind the guise of essay, isn't it SWAT? Stop trolling my page because you know I'll keep feeding you. the_undertow talk 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Since I made neither of those comments, I'll not try to respond to them or speculate on what the users meant. I'd guess that when they explain you'll see that it was a verbiage issue, and they probably didn't mean exactly what you think they meant, but I'm not going to speculate on exactly what they meant. My only point was the block summaries, and it's resolved to my satisfaction, and I thank you for your discussion of it. I know it's no fun to defend your actions, but it takes a good person to say they made a mistake. - Philippe | Talk 05:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't categorize myself as a good person. Let's just say that the user did not deserve the edit summary, nor even the chance at hurt feelings, as a result of that summary. I did not put myself in that users shoes. I'll still defend the other 3 summaries, as tasteless as they may have been, but I will cease to add commentary to block summaries. the_undertow talk 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay frosty Chip. You rock, and censorship is teh suck. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As the original person who left a message here, I wanted to chime in. You are welcome to file an RFC or bring the matter to WP:ANI. It was not my intention to attack you. I didn't think the matter justified bringing it up on ANI or via RfC. I thought the matter could be easily resolved on your talk page. I saw one block message which I believed was inappropriate, and brought up the matter here. I really think everyone is making a big deal out of this. --Yamla (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the assertion I was lying, it is true that I was incorrect, however, at the time I left that message, I had not yet read the original email, I was merely aware that there was a user (you) complaining about unblock-en-l, so I came to see if I could help. Certainly I would not have sent you the email if I had been attempting some sort of malicious deception. I had assumed the user had the problem, as it turned out it was not the user, but that doesn't change that someone thought there was a problem. Prodego talk 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So it's really that elliptical? I was the user with the problem, and everyone was simply here because I expressed a concern? So you made an assertion about a user BEFORE reading an email. Swatjester made an assertion about my unblock record and admits he was incorrect. And a half-a-dozen people from the private list come here one-by-one because you guys cannot handle me one-on-one? Here' s a suggestion for the private mailing list. If a user requests an unblock and ACTUALLY asserts that I was abusive, the FIRST admin to discover such abuse should report it to me, or to ANI. This way, we don't end up with my name on a mailing list, an group attack on my talk page, and people throwing 'we' around, yet saying that there is no 'we.' This could all have been prevented if you, as a group, did not, as per usual, discuss and discuss and discuss another user or group of users, before you come to some 'consensus' on how to act. Is this how you guys are in real life? When someone pisses you off, do you need to call friends for advice, discuss, and then enlist their help? If you see something that is wrong, take care of it quickly, and on your own. It prevents endless miscommunication about what user was hurt, who is a bully, who makes countless bad-faith unblock reviews, and who's civility is in questions. You guys threw out all this shit, posted my email address publiclly, accused me of just about anything, called me a dick through the guise on the essay, and the only conclusion we came to was that Philipe was correct that my block summaries were inappropriate? And your list thinks that my approach and my tonality are flawed. As an organization, your operational skills need to be fine-tuned. the_undertow talk 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Where was your email address posted? I still have no idea what it is, though I may simply not have noticed it when someone posted it. --Yamla (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I should clarify, I'm not asking you to reveal your email address, nor to reveal enough information for someone else to track down your email address. I was just surprised at this claim as I am not aware that it has been posted. --Yamla (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Prodego's nice way of jabbing me, by publicly posting my email address, which I entrusted to the privacy of the mailing list admins. Does anyone see any point for posting my email address? If he sent me mail and it didn't bounce back, then he knew it was the correct address. I inputted the address myself at the mailing list sign up, so again, one would assume that I know my own address. And if Prodego really needed to get a hold of me to confirm he could have used the email function OR he could have asked me on the talk page if I received it. As much as my edit summary deserved an ANI, I really think the thug-like tactics of the mailing list deserve even better. Publicly posting my email address was just wrong but a nice way to say 'hey, you want it all public, so here ya go.' the_undertow talk 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you are not aware, deleting this talk page, then restoring it without that particular edit selected, will hide that edit from all but administrators. Almost certainly, you've done this before but if you haven't, it's fairly easy to do so. And then, of course, there's oversight to hide it from admins. --Yamla (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's probably cached in so many other sites that it's entirely not worth it. Besides, I want to preserve the diffs, and protecting it from all but admins doesn't do any good at all, as it was an admin who posted it in the first place. I would say my trust has wavered a bit, but I'd rather just leave it alone so everyone has a chance to comment on it. After all, it was my personal address, at my domain, with my first name (which is surprisingly not undertow), which means that anyone can find the registrant information, and my home address. Those are some seriously devious tactics - far worse than anything I have done. But I'll let Prodego respond before the ANI. Privacy concerns are not taken lightly around here, especially when they come from trusted admins on lists where these things are supposed to remain private. the_undertow talk 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: funny

Thanks for the appreciation and throwing the bathwater away. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"julia allia grandorf is cool. i stalk her ill rape her and kill her." was picked up on Lupins tool. I like it! Stay Frosty, Dfrg_msc 04:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

O, snap... you're going gold!

So, since you and your friends googled me and found my legion of mirrors, I thought I'd search you.

Turns out, you've made the Top 40 music charts, this explains why you never answer, and you drink too much. Janelle was hot tho. But wai fake... physically. Okay, so good times. Lara❤Love 15:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean I was trying not to drink so much?! the_undertow talk 18:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I found those, too... I just didn't think it appropriate for me to post the links here. :) Lara❤Love 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate it. I wrapped my car around a lightpole and promised to do a 6 month recovery program. AA is much easier when its on teh internet. I appreciate your discretion, but I'm an open book. I mean, all that up above and I didn't even crack a beer ;P the_undertow talk 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Is four posts to an online message board for recovery the equivalent of 6 months of AA meetings? XD Lara❤Love 19:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow...as soon as I turn 18 I'm joining an AA message board. Just for kicks. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)