User talk:Neskaya

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Read this first: If you have a disagreement with an audio file that I have recorded for a pronunciation of an English word, I don't mind. However, I do not rerecord audio files, and I have double and triple-checked each and every file that I've done to make sure that I am saying the word correctly and the way that I say it. I am a native speaker of English, however I am also aware of the fact that I do not have a standard accent. This is because I speak several other languages, and have been in multilingual environments my whole life. That said, your best recourse if you disagree with my audio file is to either do it yourself or find someone else to add a second one. I have no problem with my audio files being replaced by better ones.

More generally,

the best way to get a hold of me is to use IRC,

on in #wiktionary, where I can be found as flood, neskaya, rising, or rowan. I do read my talk page, but I may not always have the time or energy to be able to respond to it.

I archive my talk page. Archives:


I have re-blocked Liliana-60, because I think her actions clearly merited the block, and I'm guessing/hoping that you simply didn't see all of them. I described them in my block message, so you can judge whether that's the case. If it's not, then please let me know. I'm not quite sure what the next steps are in that case, but I don't mean to push my view unilaterally if you sincerely disagree with it.

(BTW: I don't feel strongly that one month, specifically, is the appropriate block duration, but Liliana's harassment has been persistent enough that it seems reasonable to me.)

And on a lighter note — happy 2014! I hope to see you around more this year. :-)

RuakhTALK 04:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Given the timing, I suspect alcohol was involved, but after her role in the "No more Mr. Bad Guy" fiasco, she doesn't deserve a second chance. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
A month? Who was last blocked on en.WT for a month? I call bullshit. - Amgine/ t·e 06:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
To answer my own question: Two established editors were blocked for a month other than by Chuck Entz in the past 4 months. All other 1 month blocks were to anonymous IPs or to users whose creation was less than 48 hours (Vandalism only accounts):
Other noobs - most created the same day as blocked - who probably should not have been blocked. (I only sampled lightly; it is likely there were others not found.)
  • blocked User:TheKaraokeKid on Sept. 12 (User was not established, but no record of account creation date. Probably the same day as blocked.)
  • blocked User:Tonyklimczak for the user's first, single, edit on Sept. 04, which incorrectly attempted to pluralize chip.
  • blocked on Sept 03 after User:Talentunleashed made xyr only 3 edits to a single article, where they were adding non-vandalism content (but noobishly erased a large portion of the article.)
My impression is anonymous IPs are being blocked far too long, too little investigation is being done before blocking for extended periods, not enough consideration for new contributors, and there is no justification for a one-month block of a regular contributor with an extensive history by the administrator supposedly 'wronged'. Furthermore, a *single* administrator is responsible for far too many of the 1 month blocks; this suggest that administrator is out of step with the rest of the community. (There were at least two other admins who administered 1 month blocks in the past year to contributors with history - CodeCat and Ivan - but I didn't want to wade through so much data.) - Amgine/ t·e 08:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Please note that Ruakh's statement that I agreed with was about there being a block, not about the length of the block. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
<nods> I can accept that; what I saw of it was over the line. The length, however, was unacceptable. Worse was who gave the initial block - I cannot respect an admin who blocks someone with whom they are in dispute over the dispute. I would have respected a review of the block with reinstatement, but there is no evidence there was any review. The appearance is much worse than I expect the reality was: it looks like CodeCat meatpuppeted Ruakh to reinstate the block, or that it "was only a user so it doesn't matter." - Amgine/ t·e 20:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: "The length, however, was unacceptable": All right; I've reduced it to one week (plus time so far).
Re: "Worse was who gave the initial block": I agree.
Re: "The appearance is much worse than I expect the reality was: it looks like CodeCat meatpuppeted Ruakh to reinstate the block": Indeed, that is not the reality. I initially went to block Liliana-60 when I saw her edit-summary, and saw that I had already been beaten to it (though I was not thrilled to see by whom). Later, I saw more of her actions, and then I saw that she had been unblocked (because I had her userpage on my watchlist, so blocks and unblocks show up there), at which point I re-blocked and posted here.
Re: "there is no evidence there was any review": I don't think enwikt has anything like "reviews" of blocks. Do you think we need such a thing?
RuakhTALK 21:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
<nods> Yes, the above is pretty much what I expected.
As regards reviews, yes, I would like to see reviews of unusual/complicated/weird blocks and unblocks. I would have liked to see an explication from Neskaya regarding why xe unblocked, as it was reversing the actions of another admin. I would have like to see the same for the re-block. This has happened after the fact', which is good. Better had it occurred beforehand, but it has happened now so this incident - for me - is closed. - Amgine/ t·e 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Given her actions, and the lengthy discussion I had with her on IRC regarding them as well, I have entirely no disagreement with the 1 week block. It gives her some time to cool off, think about things, and come back better dedicated to productive editing -- and no drama. And perhaps I was in the wrong for unblocking rather than simply reducing the block (my initial actions were seeing the block, and letting my opinion (of being less than thrilled for CC having blocked a user they're in conflict with) rule my reaction in the first place).
As far as review process, I'd also prefer we not become Wikipedia. I like what little process we have, and the fact that we managed to come to an amicable solution to the matter via a less formal discussion such as this is good, in my view. We have an IRC channel, we also have the emailuser tool -- and these are both things which I think should be within the recourses to start with. I don't think that the review process should become more codified than simply one admin/sysop talking to another and such. We don't need that sort of stuff. (At least, we didn't the last time I was around, and I sincerely hope that we still don't. Too much of that sort of process, and large discussion pages, those don't do anyone any good.) In any case.
The matter of things such as 1 month bans being too long and when those are appropriate is, I suspect, a different discussion altogether, and one that I will take part in only peripherally, as things like my talk page are about the biggest I'm good with these days without getting hopelessly lost or inable to concentrate. --Neskaya sprecan? 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair -- I will note that I need to finish reading through that entire fiasco. I'll be doing so in the morning, and then revisiting this matter. (At the moment, what it looks like Liliana is guilty of in the SB fiasco was haranguing CodeCat again, then being misunderstood because text is a wholly inadequate medium for sarcasm, and that time, frankly, CodeCat well and wholly deserved it, but that's another matter entirely.) And I think that my biggest disagreement here is on the fact that we've blocked someone who is otherwise and to my knowledge a productive editor, was a productive administrator during her time, for a month. A month's time is inappropriate for damn near any actions, although yes. I still need to wholly review them, but wouldn't a week or so be more reasonable and then let everyone get on with their lives? (Including those of us who've been dragged into this from the outside.)
Additionally, although Liliana might have been persistent, CodeCat has been persistent as well, and his tone and such looks damn near like harassment and haranguing. As well as… reactionary, if that is in fact the correct word. Mountains out of what certainly were not mountains to begin with. Moreover he regularly seems to take a berating tone in discussions I've witnessed, and his participation is certainly one of the things that puts me off of venues like the Beer Parlour these days.
At the very least we should be taking a look at the policy of these month-long blocks in cases when they're certainly not warranted, definitely. --Neskaya sprecan? 09:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
CodeCat deserved being criticized for her actions, not having irrelevant issues of her gender and identity introduced. That changed the tenor of the discussion from anger to character assassination. While a month might not be warranted, a block definitely was. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The block log of Liliana-60 shows the block given by Ruakh had this edit summary: 'Intimidating behavior/harassment: Posting a user's location; threatening to "pay her a surprise visit"; and addressing her with an offensive slur'. Of this, posting a user's location and threatening them to "pay her a surprise visit" seems a serious offense, worth a one month's block or more. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That particular statement seems to be additionally very easily out of context. Posting a location is serious, yes. But when that location is a huge municipality containing a large number of people? The user has been talked to, warned NOT to do it again, and given an additional chance to explain her actions. A one month block off the bat is still inappropriate. As for the rest, I'm writing a more significant response to Ruakh above, after which point I'm going to go with Amgine and consider this particular matter closed. --Neskaya sprecan? 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)