User:118.93nzp/Sandbox

Sub-optimal venue for important policy discussion

I am concerned that User talk:Saqib is an unsatisfactory location for important policy discussions.

This is because that venue is not open to all editors, since Saqib often summarily removes (rather than archives) comments that he does not like.

For example, in this edit, Saqib removed material directly germane to his own Rfc. This is the material that was removed (one comment is retained for the context of the excision):

By the way, I am wondering which of the Wikivoyage policies "prohibits publishing of personal information and indirectly also commenting on them". It is embarrassing that a user who intentionally used personal information in a really bad context is protected by such policy. I have not seen the contentious edit, though. I don't know what exactly Saqib published, but I have to say that the threat looked really bad. Let's sit and giggle! --Alexander (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Although a sensible and well thought out policy, I am not aware that w:WP:DOX has ever been adopted (or, indeed, referenced in prior discussions on the English languages Wikivoyage). I'm also not aware that w:WP:DOX is mandated by the WMF. Nobody has ever provided any evidence that myself (or Alice or Frank or Tony) have ever intentionally damaged any article in mainspace (or template or policy). The disruption to improving our travel guides has been caused by name calling and "playing the proposer rather than the proposal" in policy discussions - this going as far as blocking and proposing to ban all four on specious and trumped up charges. Of course, many editors on the periphery of resistance to style and syntax changes find personality politics interesting and absorbing and may become obsessed with conspiracy theories and sockpuppet allegations, leading to reduced time for them to make more productive edits. This, however, is their voluntary pastime and diversion and should not be interfered with unnecessarily. It is also far better to have these obsessions carried out "on-wiki" lest they develop in an even more malignant manner "off-wiki". However, when their obsessions leads to edit warring and attempting to drive away and harass bona fide editors, that should be stopped - if not voluntarily, then by administrator action. Screenshot of EN Wikivoyage admin Saqib's actions regarding his own user talk page Atsirlin: Saqib was correctly warned, in my view, not to harass editors by publishing or threatening to publish personal information about editors on WMF projects. The fact that he himself has abused the additional tools given to him as an admin and hidden this warning from view (rather than deleting it or archiving it as an embarrassment) may be seen as reprehensible. (Equally, and giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming good faith, it may have been just a technical error on his part.) It would have been better if he had called for the warning admin - or a neutral third party - to hide the formal warning from view. (At this stage, I think it better that he unhide the formal warning he has hidden and ask for more neutral assistance). That said, I have no wish to restrict Saqib's editing (this project should be in the business of encouraging and educating bona fide editors, not driving them away or blocking them unnecessarily) - other than that he conform with explicit WV policies in future and not continue to abuse admin tools. --118.93nzp (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I realised it was a mistake on my part so I've nothing to say in my defence and I'm ready to voluntarily give up my admin tools incase a proposal emerge. --Saqib (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I don't think you're the worst admin here by a long stretch, Saqib, and I'm sure you'll grow wiser and less ignorant as you continue to edit. As long as you stop trying to edit and hide other's words (without a good reason justified by policy) I don't see any reason to remove your extra janitorial equipment. Please just confine their use to combat vandalism rather than enhancing your position in content or policy disputes. My suggestion is that we metaphorically shake hands and each go away a little wiser from this experience. If it will help you understand what may be a puzzling situation with Alice, Frank, Tony and myself and move on to more productive concerns, I'm still happy to phone you right now if you will e-mail me (in strict confidence) your land line phone number. --118.93nzp (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I haven't received an email from you and I do request that you stop using the " 118 & co. " construction as an explicit and continuing allegation of sockpuppetry. Nobody else has my password and I make my own editorial decisions. Please also re-read my comments above. I have not requested that you be de-sysopped. --118.93nzp (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC) It does seem strange that you should request comments here in an Rfc and then selectively remove comments that you don't like. --118.93nzp (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I should also like the double lie that I (or Alice or Frank or Tony) have ever called for him to be blocked, banned or summarily de-sysopped redacted.

Although wounds are still raw, I feel it likely that Saqib will be more circumspect about "outing" editors in future and I would like to see blocks and bans used the way we used to instead - as a very last resort and only when warnings and education have patently failed.

I do believe that Saqib needs to stop his regrettable tendencies towards censoring others civilly and lawfully expressed opinions, but that is no reason to ban him from improving our articles.

In short, it would be turning a comedy into a tragedy if Saqib or anyone else thought they needed to resign over what, ultimately, is a matter of editor education and policy clarification.

--118.93nzp (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

http://maps.wikivoyage-ev.org/w/geomap.php

Warnings

WARNING: As a consequence of political instability and the ousting of the pro-Russian government in the Ukrainian capital during violent demonstrations, the entire Crimea region became effectively part of Russia in March 2014. Armed conflict is a possibility and travel to the Crimean region is not recommended. Many countries advise travellers to be vigilant in Ukraine generally. If you plan to go to Ukraine or Russia in the next few weeks you should research carefully your travel plans.

Government travel advisories: Australia • Canada • New Zealand • United Kingdom • United States

WARNING: As a consequence of political instability and the ousting of the pro-Russian government in the Ukrainian capital during violent demonstrations, the entire Crimea region became effectively part of Russia in March 2014. Armed conflict is a possibility and travel to the Crimean region is not recommended. Many countries advise travellers to be vigilant in Ukraine generally. If you plan to go to Ukraine or Russia in the next few weeks you should research carefully your travel plans.

Government travel advisories Australia Canada New Zealand United Kingdom United States