User talk:Gladys j cortez/Archive7

RFC:Wikipedia Forever 2009
Just a heads up; I have copied your excellent comment from the RFC:Wikipedia Forever to Talk page highlights. Thanks so much for such an eloquently written comment about just how bad the Wikipedia Forever fundraiser is! Your comment truly sums it up. Have a great day! Acps110 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you!! I take that as a very great compliment indeed. I'd take it as an even GREATER compliment if the WMF would haul those repugnant ads out into the back garden at midnight and give them a decent burial in an unmarked grave, as they so richly deserve. GJC 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I've been reading through some of the thousands of pages dedicated to this, and it seems like we the community are having an effect on the direction of the overall campaign. Thank goodness! Acps110 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth
Whenever I run into your commentary on ANI, I'm usually really impressed. Keep up the good work, and if you've been screwing up anything when I'm not looking, keep doing it when I'm not looking.--Tznkai (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well, though your formula looks way to much like B>LP, and if you don't understand that, be glad.--Tznkai (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Mayme08
These accounts that you reported look like socks of User:Simulation12 and am redirecting to that case. I was just wondering why you deleted the page, as I think this is clear. MuZemike 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See, that was my original thought as well, but IIRC, they geolocate to different places. I think I recall Sim12 being from Canada; the RuffRuffman account is apparently from Texas. Of course, it may just be old age encroaching....At any rate, thanks! I don't care who/where it is, but that user's behavior really chaps my hide. GJC 02:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Block
Of course I'm not intractable regarding the block length regarding 70.121.37.111. However, I would like to point out a couple of things to you.

1)There was no dispute. I told him what I was blocking him for, and that there had already been some discussion about that kind of behavior being block-able.

2)The IP address appears to be a static one, where a single editor has been making a number of edits that are of a very similar nature, for an extended period of time. I thought that this warrants a lengthy block.

3)Some of the finer points of blocking policy: (I assume you know this stuff already, I'm merely providing you with some rational for my own actions.)
 * "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia."
 * "accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes"
 * "A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent."
 * "Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires. If there is persistent disruption or vandalism from an IP address, the block should be extended (with the 'anon-only' option selected) as long as is necessary to prevent further disruption."

I don't mind your "block review" of 70.121.37.111. "Other editors can request IP block exemption on a per user basis if they can show good cause." However; “ 	Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined." —Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman#Review and discussion of blocks	”


 * This IP engaged in a clear attack as per my reasoning on their talk page.
 * They persisted in bad behavior, going as far as to solicit sexual activity for administrative action to overturn a block.
 * Furthermore, they had engaged in "repartee" on various User talk pages in commentary of a salacious nature.    . I could supply -from my cursory count- 11 more of these.
 * There is a history of making personal threats
 * There is a history of disruptive actions

If I were to re-block, it would be for one year.

You will notice that I left the door open for this anon to create an account and come back to Wikipedia in a productive editing role.

Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Replying here as you pasted this to my UT page as well. I simply tweaked the note on the IP's user talk page (I also unprotected the talk page - we really ought use the block settings for that if disruption warrants it). Coincidentally though, I do agree with Gladys that indefinitely blocking IPs is a very rare occurrence and one that was not warranted in this case. A year is a bit of a stretch right off the hop too, better to start moderate and increase as you go up to 1 yr. (So the next block would be 2 weeks/1 month followed by 3/6/12 months.) –xenotalk 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but acquiesce. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree with what? It's long-established policy and practice that IPs should rarely be blocked indefinitely. There's even a report that lists such rare occurrences so they can be reviewed and rectified where appropriate. –xenotalk 23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment that any subsequent block for the kinds of editing I have pointed out, should be on the -what I perceive as- rather liberal terms you have set out for this particular editor.
 * I do agree that indefinite blocks on IP's are rarely done. (The fact that you linked me to a section of policy that I have already quoted from in a previous section, makes me wonder how closely you've read those comments.) But they are sometimes, and I have seen that you have enacted a few yourself.
 * I feel that you have not considered the caliber of certain of this editors "contributions." If they come back and are disruptive, the project should not have to suffer for it. Not even a little bit. I think you have a rather complete overview of my opinions on this matter now. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Roadrunner is a cable Internet provider; they provide temporary leases of their IP addresses. To shut out a potentially constructive user who inherits this address would be a shame. (For circumstantial proof this is not a static IP, note the first edit from the IP . Obviously someone coming back with an axe to grind. This perhaps would lend support to using a lengthier block off the hop; I had not realized this in my previous comment.) This editor is fairly tame as disruptive editors go. If they persist past this week block surely they will not past a month. –xenotalk 23:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) To HS: Fair enough; I understand your rationale for the block, and for the length. I think the core of our different views is: when you look at this user's edits, you see "threatening"; I see "juvenile (redacted....doggone WP:NPA policy)" (and he's CLEARLY obsessed with homosexuality; I have my theories on THAT charming sort of trollery, but I'll forbear.) I don't think there was any serious intent with the unblock...um, "offer"; the "terrorist" remark looked to me to be something that was calculated for maximum shock value. Same with the talk-page diffs. To me, this editor's behavior is like a three-year-old who just learned that mommy gets REALLY upset when you're in the grocery store and you say that word you heard daddy say to the furnace. And what does that three-year-old do, once he sees mommy's reaction? He says it over and over and over. That, to me, is this guy. Look at it this way: if he comes back, he's likely to come back as a sock, rather than waiting out his block length. The shorter block length just reduces that possibility by a minuscule fraction. And if he DOES keep coming back, we can just reblock for longer and longer. In short: Thanks for being so civil in your disagreement. Your failure to scream and yell and threaten ArbCom is much appreciated! :) GJC 01:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We strive together, for the greater good. As I posted to User talk:Slim Virgin regarding the IP block, "Nothing can be done, that cannot easily be undone. At least for awhile." Thanks for your own consideration in this matter. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your message above is very, very, very disturbing Hamster Sandwich. Your actions were uncalled for, as I stated on the WP:AN. -- A3RO (mailbox)  04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We've forgotten the 2 other most flagrant possible abuses on top of the blocking in general-- Sysop restricting edits to sysop only in conjunction with adding disgusting and tasteless insults of a user; The fact that the block was payback for a 2-week-old argument and that zero explanation of the indef was offered at the time of the block. Blocks are not for past actions as it was applied here, and although past blocks might be evidence at an ANI as demonstration of poor faith, they're not grounds for a rogue admin to slap on judgment. Take it up with the admin who issued that previous block and ask when it wasn't longer instead of just branding it on vigilante justice. Actually, do we have a "double jeopardy" clause in Wikipedia? The IP user was already blocked for the older comments, and was already blocked for that day per admin's suggestion; indef thrown on top of that without any warning or discussion. That's direct multiple blocks for the same one event, and if we don't have a policy against that we probably should.
 * Regardless of what the status of any block ends up looking like (I won't lie and say this IP is a model Wikipedia user if it is a static IP), those other actions are far over the line of what any admin should ever do; I'll be putting an ANI up over the sysop lock on disgusting insults, rouge block changes and apparent user stalking for 2 weeks. A drastic change to indef was basically an invitation to trick someone into wheel warring from a revert of your change from the first posting admin. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oddly, I didn't even see the whole was-already-blocked thing; as for "policy against direct multiple blocks of a user for the same event", occasionally there ARE valid reasons for changing the block length like that, though I'll admit the change generally runs in the OTHER direction. I'm going to have to think on this for a bit. GJC 11:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed... A 48hr was there for the fairly obnoxious admin disrespect, etc. That I can see as fine. It's that the indef was randomly slammed above it with no talk or actual reason. In fact, a Wikistalk show zero prior contact between this IP and except an accidental article talk page months and months apart. If as if drive-by block wasn't suspicious enough, if they've never communicated at Wikipedia before? Stalking concerns, especially considering the admin had posted to Jimbo's talk page 2 weeks ago about a racist comment from the IP (that did earn the IP a block 2 weeks ago). A possible explanation for that all would be watchlisting the IP on assumption they'll mess up again, and pounce when they did. The "coincidence" of the given diff to Jimbo is extremely dubious in the overall picture. ↓
 * I'm still waiting for proof and diffs on the night of the "upgrade" to indef block that shows within any kind of reason that the user was some kind of threat or disruptive beyond user talk page. You cannot punish things from weeks ago just because a certain edit made someone angry. I need to be convinced this user was a threat to anything but maturity when it came time to change the block duration. When concentrating this new info, lastly, do note that the move to indef was a full day after the 48hr with zero warning ahead of time or any attempt at support or consensus for it. Literally, a rouge decision. CJC: Pending your opinion on this as someone clearly trying to remain as neutral as possible, I'm going to delay my listing to ANI to try to remove first-responder bias before you might comment at normal hours. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess who's back vandalizing the WordGirl pages again... 76.200.233.228 I politely requested that he/she stop, but has not listened. So, I am reporting him to you to deal with and have asked that the WordGirl and List of characters in WordGirl pages become permanently protected. NoseNuggets (talk) 6:33 PM US EST Dec 16 2009.
 * I asked for a full protect, but it was denied by tedder. Needless to say, 76.200.233.228's fingerprints were all over the edits, adding nonsensical episodes and numbers of said episodes, hence the "full protection." Here's what I wrote on his/her talk page:
 * "So you don't listen, do you? I have asked you politely to cease and deist your vandalism to WordGirl and List of characters in WordGirl as I am tired of reverting your edits. I now have no other choice but to ask the moderators that your IP be blocked indefinitely and ask the pages be permanently protected for unregistered users like you. This has got to stop one way or another, and don't blame me for this. This is on you and you alone, and no, this is not a personal attack. If you only registered for Wikipedia then we would have a person-to-person talk. But no, you keep doing this strictly to anger everyone, especially those who have contributed to these articles."
 * This IP was banned twice for a total of 17 days - three days by you and two weeks by Cirt also banished this person in question and IIRC continues to troll with the nonsense. and  are submitted for evidence. NoseNuggets (talk) 11:05 PM US EST Dec 16 2009
 * Thanks for the block on our "friend" 76.200.233.228. Three months will be a long time for them to think about what they did. NoseNuggets (talk) 9:49 AM US EST Dec 20 2009.
 * I guess our old "friend" hasn't given up, and is now using 69.182.193.69 to vandalize the WordGirl pages again.  submitted as evidence. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:53 AM US EST Dec 26 2009.
 * New vandal alert! 75.108.87.52 replacing "WordGirl" with "Camlin".  for evidence. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:17 AM US EST Jan 10 2010.

Hi!
Sorry to be sneaky. I decided that I was tired of being the uber-identifiable (and clueful, apparently) sarcasticidealist, and decided I'd rather bask in the anonymity of my real name. I'll return your wishes for a Happy Thanksgiving, I'm afraid that you were over a month late in my case. Appreciated nonetheless. person y (awesomely clueful) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Update
I wasn't sure if you'd seen this. Just thought that, since you had some fairly strong opinions concerning the block of that IP last week, you might like to know. BTW I just found this dif, because I went around to all of the TP's of the editors who had commented/flamed regarding the block to see if there was anything they might have cared to add. If I cared even a little bit more, I would go back and mention to at least one of them that credibility is something that is earned, and that a lot of bold talk about "conspiracies" and whatnots, go far to diminish that precious resource. But I won't, because I'm a firm believer in giving people just enough rope to eventually hang themselves. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow
I just thought I'd take a moment to say that this is one of the best posts I've ever seen on any talk page - ever. Bravo and thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brimstone
I'll bring the hotdogs, cause I laughed.--Tznkai (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sunny side up show
huh? what new host? --Jena  (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AN/I tagging dispute
Your comment there brightened my morning - thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Change for the better
Dear Gladys, thank you for the message. I hope that an outcome of the discussion will be a change of policy for the better. I will check and see how things are going on, but I doubt that I will continue to make any more contributions. Wikipedia has been good to me and I have been told via e-mails that I have done good with my work and made a difference in some people's life's which is really satisfying. Yes, Antonio is my son, a little crazy at times, but a good. I also told him to remove what he wrote on his page (I was outraged). You are a good person and I hope that this year brings you a lot of blessings. I want to share this story with you. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Delighted you stopped by ...
Have seen your name flash by many times in the flow .... Suspect your watchlist is too full to watch my talk, so here's my reply. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply #2 Proofreader77 (interact) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Following up on ANI
Hello: In ANI and also on Proofreader77's user page, you asserted that some of my edits you believed had gone against BLP guidelines. Prior to your remarks in the ANI, yourself and Proofreader77 were discussing outside of Wikipedia topic (microwaving ice cream) on his userpage. You made assertions knowing that no BLP violations had ever been raised to me.

You then affirmed you would provide me of BLP violations, in a days time. Five days have passed. What are your plans? --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The AN/I you speak of is closed, and generally when an AN/I is closed, issues related to it are considered moot. I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that this is not the case here. I will still provide evidence of those violations, although it may not be today, as I am currently at work and will not have time to be online this evening. GJC 15:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The ANI was never about my content, and your response was clear that you would respond, and that was with your expectation the ANI was being closed. If in your capacity of Admin, you are leveling aspersions on editors within and ANI and to other editors, you need to be forthright.   If you indicate you will do something, follow through.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)