User talk:Msh210/Archive/Razorflame

Adding this link for the sake of whatlinkshere.

This page is an archive of old discussion. Please don't edit this page. If you wish to communicate with me (msh210), you can do so at User talk:Msh210. Thanks!

Razorflame

Can you explain why exactly did you indefblock him? --Ivan Štambuk 07:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See his block summaries.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, did he edit in languages other than those 5? --Ivan Štambuk 07:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So you blocked him indefinitely because he added a Persian transliteration in a translation table that already existed on هوش ? --Ivan Štambuk 07:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely because of his numerous bad edits. I thought I could get away with no one's complaining about the block because of [1].​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

AFAICS, he made some ~2500 edits since June 17th when he made a promise not to edit other languages, all of which where OK except that one. Apparently he was adding Esperanto and Ido translation at intelligence, saw Persian هوش without a transliteration, clicked it, saw it provided at [[هوش]], and then propagated it back. The original entry was created by a knowledgeable Persian editor, so there is no reason to assume that Razorflame willfully spread potentially wrong material researched on his own. I wish he hadn't done it but...wouldn't you agree that indefblock is bit too excessive? He didn't do anything wrong after all. Would you agree in lifting the block if Razorflame specifically promised not to edit translation tables in languags other than those 5? --Ivan Štambuk 07:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that any reasonable reading of what he wrote includes translation tables. Anything else ignores the reason for his promise, which is that people found that they could not trust his edits in other languages: where those edits are made (definition lines, translation tables, Descendants sections) doesn't really matter. That this particular edit can be trusted because it's a copy of an edit by Kaixinguo is false (because Kaixinguo may have made a typo, and Razorflame does not know otherwise, or, at least, cannot be trusted to know otherwise) and irrelevant (because the block is not just for this one edit: it's for many).​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't answer your question. No, I wouldn't.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with msh210. We've been through this so many times, and I'm tired of it. Razorflame has been caught making bad edits more times than I can count (and has probably make a whole lot more, which haven't been caught), and always promises to change his behaviour, but never does. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with msh210 and Atelaes. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Me, too. (BTW, Ivan says every edit was O.K. except that one, but I've not seen any evidence to support that claim. If he's made 2500 edits in the past two weeks, it's unlikely that each one has been fully scoured by knowledgeable editors.) —Ruakh_TALK 13:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just blocked him twice, the second time to add a comment to the block log. I noticed afterwards that the first block had a timespan of "infinite" set and the second "indefinite". This should not be taken to mean that I intended to change from an infinite block to a merely indefinite (but eventually to be removed) one. I did not so intend. The wording change was unintentional, and I intended the block to be permanent. (Obviously, if there is community consensus in disagreement with blocking him permanently, I will abide by it. I'm talking about the more likely scenario that there is no such consensus, and, in any event, about the current situation that such consensus has not been shown to exist.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this block. Adding a transliteration to a trans table from elsewhere on Wiktionary does not seem like a violation of his promise, and I doubt that he though so either when adding it. He specifically asked for a final chance, and to be permanently blocked if he doesn't keep it, and I'm inclined to believe him. --Yair rand (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Believe him about what? I believe him when he said "If I stray at any point, you may block me indefinitely. This will be the final chance"[2]. Not penultimate. What are you believing him about?​—msh210℠ 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"This is the first and only time that I am serious about this. I will seriously only edit those five langauges." I have no reason to think that he was lying. --Yair rand (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

At the time, you mean, I assume, because in retrospect he clearly was. Maybe at the time he thought he was telling the truth, I don't know. What's the difference?​—msh210℠ 18:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Razorflame has now e-mailed me, asking for an unblock or a revision of the block to be short-term (he suggests a fortnight or so), saying he learns from his mistakes, that he knows he messed up, and he wants "one final chance". I think my comments in the block summaries and above are reply enough to all that, but I have a question for all interested parties who may be watching this page. It seems to be that he really might learn, or mature, or whatever — though not likely in a fortnight. Perhaps the block should only be a year long, so as to give him another chance (yes, yet another chance, but this time a year later)? What think you all?​—msh210℠ 19:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The particular nature of the mistake doesn't seem very bad. It is only the continuing saga of broken promises and interpersonal conflict that seem to waste time and cause public drama. That those with regular contact with RFlame seem to not value his contributions very much is troublesome. I had encouraged him to make contributions in English, but he did not seem very interested. He seems to be seeking to learn by making mistakes, which approach may be good for him, but is a drain on the patience of those who correct them. This seems like an area where the bulk of editors should defer to those in the best position to assess the contributions since the previous drama. There doesn't seem to be any matter of principle that is not being honored in the process as it is now being carried out here. DCDuring TALK 20:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A year seems quite reasonable to me. He certainly has enthusiasm, which is a very useful trait here. A year-long break would certainly give him impetus to rethink his modus operandi, lest he suffer another one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(In reply to DCDuring.) I suppose people who know Ido, and Esperanto, and Italian, and whatever, can go back and look at all his edits. They shouldn't have to, is sorta the point. If an editor, after so many edits, still is so untrustworthy, he should not be editing.​—msh210℠ 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you guys should cut him some slack. It's a really harsh interpretation to say that he broke his promise by making a contribution in the translation tables. The kid is willing to learn. A block of one year is ridiculous, by the way. --Dijan 05:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Before you can block a well-intended editor indefinitely (or for a long time), you have to specify the reasons. "Numerous bad edits" is nebulous and unacceptable. You have to give diffs to the specific edits that you are blocking him for. So far, the only thing that I can make out from this undocumented accusation is that he copied a Persian transliteration from one page and added it to another page. I don’t know which Persian word was involved, so I can’t judge the value of his edit. Razorflame may be a thorn in some of our sides, due to his young age and immaturity and lack of experience, but he tries hard to improve and has his heart in the right place. Like any other editor, he deserves due process, and this block denied due process. If he is to be blocked, it has to be done correctly and fairly. —Stephen 09:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See numerous discussions about his bad edits on his talkpage and its archives. Some of those link to diffs, most do not, but it is clear that all parties to the conversations — Razorflame included — knew what edits they were talking about.​—msh210℠ 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re due process and fairness: Blocks generally are done by one admin on his own say-so. There is no other process, except that sometimes people contest the block on the blocking admin's talkpage or by e-mailing him. Anyone who wants to do so in this case may do so (and Ivan and you did here, and Razorflame did by e-mail), but as you can see the general opinion — as expressed on this page, anyway — is that a block is in order, forever or at least for a good long time. So I think that the process we usually follow has been followed, and that the general opinion is that the block was fair.​—msh210℠ 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As requested by Razorflame in an email, I will give my opinion here: While Razorflame has done a lot of good here, he has also done a lot which is not really acceptable - while he goes through phases of apologising profusely (to anyone and everyone) he forgets, very very quickly, any of what he has been told and returns to making mistakes. If it could have been shown that he learns from his mistakes, sure, we can unblock him as another "lesson learned". The sad fact is that he doesn't (and there is a very long history to show this), so unblocking him will lead to another fortnight of editing, and then another indefinite block. There is simply no point in going through this any more times, so, let the block stand. Conrad.Irwin 15:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It needn't be indefinite, but I agree there should be a block of significant length. Equinox ◑ 15:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Razorflame emailed me to give an opinion too. The languages we work on don't overlap, but from the related conversations it seems to me that if you lift the block now you'll have the same discussion pretty soon again. In my life I've seen "second last chances" work, but "third last chances" only lead to more - if there wasn't a temporary ban of some sort, it always ultimately came to a permanent one. That said, I don't know whether Razorflame isn't of the age in which "one year" still almost rhymes with "eternity". --Thrissel 17:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RF emailed me too. I think year-long ban is appropriate. I think Mushy did the appropriate thing here, even though he is... *cough*... you know. @Stephen: RF perpetuated wrongly transliterated Persian هوش into the translation table as hush, even though it should have been huš. --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RF emailed me too. I don't see any problem with that edit, I don't think we can't add transliterations to languages we don't know if its source is well, Wiktionary itself. If the block was based on that edit alone, the block was wrong. Were there any other bad edits after his last unblock? --Anatoli 22:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer your last question first, I don't believe anyone's gone through them. I do not feel comfortable answering in the negative (or, to be fair, in the affirmative) without that. To answer you main point ("...add transliterations... if the source..."), Tbot does something similar: it adds translations that it doesn't know are correct, based on others' adding them in other places. But it does so with a big warning that the entry might be wrong, so that no one is fooled.​—msh210℠ 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Razorflame also asked me to give my opinion. I think that what he did didn't deserve a block because (I hope) he just copied the transliteration from هوش even though that doesn't explain why the transliteration was spelled wrong... I don't think he wittingly broke the promise, because he wouldn't have done something that simple knowing that he would be blocked indefinitely. Ultimateria 22:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I thank you all for your comments. I shall revise the block to a length of one year. I doubt whether there's anything more to be said, but if someone has something to say that is novel then by all means go ahead.​—msh210℠ 23:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Razorflame has e-mailed me four times total, mostly repeating himself. (I've responded here.) I think I am justified in blocking his use of the emailuser tool if he e-mails me another four or five times. If anyone objects to that, please say so. His last message was a note that six admins oppose a long-term block, and that therefore it should be lifted, and my response follows. While six admins do oppose it (including the bureaucrat SGB) (I'm including Ivan, since the condition he specified above has been agreed to by Razorflame in an e-mail message to me), there are six who support it (plus Thrissel), and since generally we rely on the blocking admin's discretion to block in absence of consensus to the contrary, it will stay in place.​—msh210℠ 23:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

After RF says that he's very serious about not editing any languages besides his "five", and he probably knows that I, if not both Vahag and I, edit Persian and could've asked one of us about the transliteration... the xlit for هوش should be huš, as wikt standards would use sh for سح or سهـ... Regardless of how minor that mistake would be and how inconsistent we currently are in our Persian transliterations, he's made enough mistakes in other minor places that I don't see a problem in permanently banning him for the most minor offenses after he's been warned so many times for doing the same thing over...and over... and over... and over... and over... for more than a year. He explicitly promised not to edit in languages outside of those 5, and even a transliteration is breaking that promise. Isn't 123abc banned permanently for making bad edits even in a language that he seemed to have a pretty good knowledge of? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion so far, I am keen on joining the six opposing admins, especially Dijan and SGB, for the following reasons:

1. The Persian entry, at the time RF copied the transliteration, contained hush, so his transliteration was consistent therewith. It has been added by Kaixinguo, who is a reliable Persian contributor. Whilst I agree that it should have been huš, I doubt that back in April 2007 (date of creation of the entry) the conversion from sh to š had been indorsed. Therefore, it is Kaixinguo’s responsibility to change it to huš. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
2. The diff with the added transliteration does not contain anything wrong.
3. I would support a long-term block for RF, if a diff proving his error were provided, which is not the case here. Whilst I agree with Opiaterein’s concern about sh standing for سح, it is true that many Persian entries still use sh for ش. In the past, when blocking RF, Opiaterein was able to refute his edits (chiefly by diffs) and only then resort to blocks (which were subsequently light-heartedly revoked). This is not the case here, so the block is unjustified.
4. If RF managed to not swerve from the 5 languages for a duration of 2 weeks, this may be considered a palpable improvement for an editor such as RF. Therefore I disapprove of sending him a wrong message by blocking him in lieu of encouraging this trend of his. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Even the article about the Persian letter itself contained sh until I fixed it today. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Though he could have theoretically checked Wiktionary:Persian transliteration beforehand. But still, I don't really think this is a strong enough reason to indef block him. -- Prince Kassad 09:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

2 weeks is not that impressive to me... earlier Ivan mentioned that he'd done about 2500 edits without veering into 'forbidden languages', but when you look... a lot of that is just verb forms - which in the case of Ido is 100% copy-paste. Literally, every entry is the same. Further, while copying a transliteration - correct or not - is ok, am I the only one who thinks that he'll just try to make other seemingly insignificant edits in a similar way? Would it have been ok for him to copy هوش to a translation table where it was lacking? It still astounds me that anyone can trust him, given his year-long history of being told not to do something and then going and doing it somewhere else. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone is looking at this all wrong. msh210 is not handing out a year-long block for a single transliteration error. That would be absurd. msh210 is handing out a year-long block for a year consistent pattern of edits, of which this transliteration error is one example. Razorflame has been asked over and over to stop making edits in languages he does not know, because he makes lots and lots of seemingly innocuous errors. However, those errors add up over time. And the important point here is that he's been asked specifically not to do this, because he doesn't take the time to properly research what he enters. Saying that Kaixinguo is responsible for the error is absurd. The transliteration was probably valid back when it was entered. Has anyone here gone over every single edit they've ever made and made sure that they conform to all current standards? I sure as hell haven't. It's utterly unreasonable to expect anyone to do so. However, it is reasonable to expect editors to conform to current standards at the time of their edit. Razorflame did not take the time to learn the standards, as he so often doesn't. He's been asked to do so repeatedly, and has promised to do so repeatedly, but ultimately does not. He is being blocked for consistently refusing to edit in a responsible manner, not for a transliteration error. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never claimed that Kaixinguo is responsible for the error. At the time he created the entry this was the current transliteration, so he duly adhæred thereto. I meant to say that ascertaining the correctness or rectifying errors is expected to be done by him, but not by users with no knowledge in Persian (I am reluctant to quote myself, but I feel compelled: it is Kaixinguo’s responsibility to change it - this has nothing to do with K. is responsible for the error). Had RF changed the transliteration in the Persian entry, he would have caused far fiercer indignation than by copying a transliteration. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is whether RF's behavior over the period since the last block constitutes close to blameless (not absolutely blameless) behavior. If so, that constitutes enormous improvement and may mean that we are finally seeing benefit from having gone through the tedious rounds of broken promises. If we now view RF as likely to go into another round of bad behavior at any moment, what in his most recent behavior that makes that seem more likely? Or do we now think that his last block should have been for much longer and now wish to correct the error? DCDuring TALK 14:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RF e-mailed me yet again, this time asking me to reply to DCDuring. I think that his editing Persian, which he does not claim to know, shows retroactively that his May 13, 2010, unblock, in the hope that he would finally edit correctly, was in fact baseless. He might not "go into another round of bad behavior at any moment", but (a) he almost certainly will at some point and (b) the rest of us should not have to constantly look over his shoulder to block him when that occurs.​—msh210℠ 19:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

RF has emailed me as well (at 20:52) asking me to comment here. I've not had much interaction with him and so I have very little knowledge of his past indiscretions, and I am reluctant to get involved now but I have read all of the above discussion. There is not universal agreement that the single edit in question (copying the transliteration) broke the spirit of his voluntary agreement, so an indefinite block just for this is not imho appropriate and were it to be taken in isolation then it would be unjustifiable. However, there seems to be a lot of history leading up to it, and so the key question is - can we be certain that unblocking him now will benefit Wiktionary? I don't feel qualified to answer that question either way. The next question is, if he is not unblocked now, is there a chance that in the future he may become a valuable contributor? Given that it appears RF is young, I think the answer is yes, assuming he restricts himself to editing the five languages until such time as those interacting with him agree to lift this restriction.

Were this Wikipedia, then the arbitration committee might issue a resolution something like the following, which I think is the best way forward:

• Razorflame should be blocked for 1 year for any edit that consensus agrees is a breach of his voluntary restriction to edit only in the 5 languages. I personally have no opinion whether the edit in question constitutes such a breach or not.
• If Razorflame returns at any point after the block expires, he must not make any edits in any languages other than the five listed in his voluntary agreement (including transliterations and translation table entries). The first breach of this will result in an infinite ban.
• Additional languages may be added to the list only with the agreement of active editors of that language (e.g. adding Haitian Creole to the list requires the agreement of those editors who actively edit Haitian Creole entries on the English Wiktionary) and should be prominently noted on RF's user or user talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)