Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive134

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Threats of violence[edit]

The WP:TOV discussion might do with some comments, if anyone is inclined. To better form consensus. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino page[edit]

Im sorry all I am good with on Wikipedia is editing; I dont know all this admin stuff so I hope someone can help and sort this out. Its a bit of vandalisim; a bit of an edit war; and in need of protection as well (new users and vandals like to get their hands on this page). I like to keep an eye on and edit silent star pages. One such one is the Rudolph Valentino page. A new user who seems to have been involved in several edit wars before named User talk:Kevin j started adding lots of little information in hundreds of small edits; citing a fan site the first time. He left me a dirty message when I reverted one edit as it wasnt citeable and did not fit where he put it (I however left his other ones). I responsded calmly and rereverted the same edit.

The next day there was another series of small edits; he left me another nasty message before he did them saying his source was such and such book. I looked at the new edits and found them acceptable but in need of a little copyediting. So I moved some paragraphs around to flow better and took out one unciteable and hard to prove statement (whether he would have transitioned talkies or not; for certain that users statement is untrue for Valentino by his recordings had a strong Italian baratone voice). He left me ANOTHER nasty message trying to goid me into a talk page mud sling with him but I didnt reply. He then reverted my edits saying they were 'crap' and 'not cited' though all I had done was cleaned his very edits. I reverted them again but HELP please!

I have worked on many obscure pages and beefed up many silent star pages including Olive Thomas and Jack Pickford. This guy seems to do nothing but annoy people. I want some protection to the page, him to quit harassing me, and another editor to take a look at the edits that have been made and feel free to judge for themselves. Thank you. --Thegingerone (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to examine this in great detail right now, so to kick things of for other admins, this diff seems to set the tone between Kevin j (talk · contribs · logs) and Thegingerone (talk · contribs · logs) with regards to this article. While I have not yet checked all sources added here, one that jumped out at me was this one by Kevin j as a citation to describe Valentino's voice: the source discusses a seance that Valentino apparently took part in 36 years after his death. At the moment I cannot play the audio file on this page, but I cannot help but be a little sceptical about the validity of such a source.
By looking at both users' talk-pages, it should also be noted that neither participant here has an absolutely clean record in disputes like this. - 52 Pickup (deal) 10:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that this was a senance, but it also gave people a good description of Valentino's squeaky voice that had aired on old broadcasts. Senances are a lot of time cons that alter a person's words from old speeches. I intend to use more recordings, and this was only my first one.Kevin j (talk)

Since LeithP was the one who recommended that I face a topic ban on this noticeboard, how can he have the final say in the matter. As I see it, the community was divided - with Desione and Bobby Awasthi siding with me. If the decision had already been taken unilaterally by LeithP, what was exactly the point of this entire circus? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This refers to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:DemolitionMan thread above, if anyone needs background. Leithp 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears Ronmotel closed that, not Leithp. RlevseTalk 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To be precise, Leithp declared the topic ban, and Ronnotel officially "closed" the thread about 45 minutes later. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hence, isn't there an obvious conflict of interest here? Two admins discuss on their respective talk pages, bring the issue on the noticeboard and take the decision despite at least two other editors besides me disagreeing. How is that a consensus? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure why the thread about User:DemolitionMan was mentioned here. Relevance? The admins don't overlap, neither do the editors involved.
  • Someone mistakenly deleted the header for the User:DemolitionMan thread. I've reinstated the thread below (for the record).--RegentsPark (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The conclusion about Valentino's 'squeaky voice' needs a reliable source. An editor listening to a recording is not enough.
  • There is nothing about any of this on Talk:Rudolph Valentino. Talk is always good, when changes may be controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

why are my articles blocked and or changed and deleted??[edit]

Resolved: advice left

I am not trying to do wrong, I am trying to add information about myself which is true and I fell worthwhile Please help This is a message I got after making a few changes..

The addition you made to Portland State University is reverted because it needs a Wikipedia article already written about him. The article should follow biography guidelines, assert notability, and source his association with PSU. Thanks. —EncMstr 07:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, since you might share his name, you should read conflict of interest, and neutral point of view. —EncMstr 07:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Please stop adding yourself to articles as you have here, here, here, here, and at Portland State University. If you are notable (doubtful going by the very few hits on a Google search for "Dennis M. Knable") start an article (though do read WP:AUTO first) that meets WP:BIO, then link. Otherwise your repeated actions come across as vandalism. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmknable"

Explained on User's talk page. This is not an admin issue. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given this user a uw-v3 warning for repeatedly adding himself to articles. Being a Royal Knight of Hutt River Principality seems like a stretch to claim notability. Corvus cornixtalk 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu and I had a discussion and we decided to remove my warning, since the user hadn't edited since the previous warning. Corvus cornixtalk 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut + paste move repair needed[edit]

Resolved: mattbr 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit appears to be a cut + paste move. Can an administrator repair the article histories? Thanks, скоморохъ 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit so that the edit history remains at the original page. Please discuss on the talk page and utilise Wikipedia:Requested moves if needed. Thanks, mattbr 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Orangemike (talk · contribs) is making inappropriate use of the hardblock[edit]

Resolved: AGK § 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are several examples of Orangemike (talk · contribs) hardblocking accounts simply for having promotional usernames just today: [1] [2] [3] [4]. This is not appropriate, as the hardblock is only to be used in the case of usernames that show a blatant disregard for the username policy. Accounts with names that are promotional are in most cases created simply misguidedly, in which case a soft block is appropriate, but not a hardblock, as this prevents legitimate editors from editing or creating accounts with appropriate names.--Urban Rose 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have any examples of you trying to reconcile this with Orangemike first would you? John Reaves 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
...or informing him of this thread? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have informed Orangemike about this thread and agree it should have been discussed with him before raising it at any noticeboard. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make an alternate template for use at UAA which would provide "hardblock" and "softblock" links with the boxes filled in, but it caused trouble for the bot. The default parameters for the block link are for a hardblock so this could have been simple user error. (nevermind, block reason was filled in) —Random832 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just informed him of this thread and apologized for bringing it up here before addressing him personally.--Urban Rose 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody did notify me, thanks; no problem, Rose, we're all trying to do the right thing here. I thought that hardblocks were the appropriate treatment for spammers? If I am mistaken, obviously I will stop doing it posthaste; but I believed I was doing the correct thing in protecting the project from the marketing mavens who are constantly flooding us with their spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I was rather surprised that this was brought up at the noticeboard, without getting in touch with Mike first. Anyway, I digress: it's probably best, Orange Mike, if we bump down the username blocks to soft in the future? It's not a huge deal—if any editor does get fouled by the off-kilter block settings, I'm sure they can email the folks at Unblock-en-l for assistance. Having said that, it is bound to put some people off creating a new account (too much trouble, etc.), so just watch this in future, if possible. Moving onwards, I'm tagging this as resolved: not a big deal, Mike's taken note, no need for any further action. Best regards, AGK § 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Well, a company name alone isn't the same as the user being a spammer. —Random832 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If an accounts edits amount too nothing but spam it should be hardblocked, but at least one of the accounts that he blocked today has good contribs. Personally, I think that if an account has no spammy contribs and just a promotional username we should assume good faith and soft block it.--Urban Rose 21:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not, I thought, been hardblocking folks who looked like noobs, as opposed to promotional/role accounts. The only one of the examples Rose listed that's even marginal is the John Wooden fan, and his edits were all related to Wooden and Wooden's "Pyramid of Success" stuff. Still, when in doubt I'll soft block. Glad the whole thing came out calmly. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anybody home at WP:AIV?[edit]

Resolved: Complaint acknowledged. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Isn't there anybody watching WP:AIV on a constant basis? For example: Today I issue IP 85.60.53.190 a final warning at 21:52 (my time). He ignores it, vandalizes some more, and at 21:56 I report him at a virtually empty WP:AIV. It takes another 10 minutes (while the IP does three more disruptive edits) before he's finally blocked. Earlier this week the same thing happend when I reported another IP vandal (67.36.182.26, I think.) Took also over 10 minutes after the WP:AIV report, while the vandalizing just went on in the mean time.

Similar thing happened with Timtime77 today, which is clearly a vandalism only account. He vandalized (once) after the last warning and my report at WP:AIV, but nothing happened at all. I feel pretty stupid when I issue last warnings that don't appear to mean much.

Something else I don't get: user Eric D Knapp. I report him to WP:UAA/BOT because he edits an article to include an external link to Eric D Knapp's book (that you can get on Eric D Knapp's website). When I recently reported the TheOperaCritc, Xunantunich, and MedicineHorseProgram for similar edits and usernames, they got blocked indefinitely. But Eric D Knapp gets a friendly story about possible COI problems instead.

In short: Why does it sometimes takes so long before an ignored final warning results in a block? And what's the difference between Eric D Knapp and, say, Xunantunich? Thanks. Rien (talk\stalk)  23:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For one, we are all volunteers here. If you want 24/7 support with 2 minute reaction time, I can get you a quote ;-). As for the user names, User:Eric_D_Knapp seems to be Eric D. Knapp, a real person editing under his real name. The other accounts have purely promotional names, and were blocked for a violation of WP:U. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(ironic edit conflict) Sometimes it takes a while because we're only human. I can't be monitoring AIV or anywhere else all day long, and neither can anyone else. There's going to be small gaps, especially at times when most of the US is sleeping. Useight (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, the US is 8 to 10 hours behind me. 23:00 my time is (approx) 14:00 US time. Surely you guys are awake by then ;-) Rien (talk\stalk)  23:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here in North America, we do have jobs that we work at ;) Franamax (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But right now you're behind your computer, answering me. Got fired? ;-) Rien (talk\stalk)  00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm self-employed. I can't get fired. On the other hand, my boss is a big jerk. :) Franamax (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary has a FINE definition of volunteer. Perhaps you should read it before complaining so vehemently about the slow reaction time during some random 10-minute window.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not "complaining vehemently", I'm asking a question. Thank you. Furthermore I know we're all volunteers. Do you think I get paid? I wondered if (and more or less assumed that) administrators would have some sort of "WP:AIV roster" (for lack of a better word), but that's obviously not the case. Fine, then I know. Spare me the sarcasm, there's no need for that. Rien (talk\stalk)  00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Rien, I sympathize with you in that when I post to an official page, time stretches out eternally while I wait for my top priority to be dealt with. But Wiki has a lot of priorities and really, 10 minutes is a pretty short time in the grand scheme of things. All the damage can be reverted, you did your part with the final warning and the vandals did eventually realize that there is a big axe. Thanks for holding the ring, defending the wiki while you waited for an admin to step in. As a suggestion for the future, does anyone have information on the latest development of the wiki-catheter? I assume it's use will be restricted to admins. :) Franamax (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

HumanRightsDefender (talk · contribs)[edit]

Creating multiple new stubs about torture, appears to be a crusader for the truth. Anyone want to deal with this? WLU (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Redirect all articles to Torture and warn the user about notability. Twelve words! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Apparently taking umbrage to wikifying. WLU (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? I come to Wikipedia to improve an article on torture to reveal modern aspects of torture currently in use. Is this a subject that some people do not want to deal with or what? HumanRightsDefender (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to redirect scrutiny away from your own misapplication of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by claiming bad faith on others who are only applying those guidelines as they are best understood is disingenuous. No one has said that the information is verboten and should never be added, however Wikipedia has clear standards of verifiability and neutrality that you appear to be unwilling to care about... Please address those concerns before assuming a grand conspiracy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
HRD, if you really feel that these forms of torture are notable and need to be covered on Wikipedia, please consider adding them here, rather than creating stubs for each one. Even better would be discussing them on that list's talk page to see if consensus would agree that they are notable. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Canditates for speedy deletion backlog[edit]

Could an administrator get on this. Thanks. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, where are the administrator's "hiding"? Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Here! (I will take a look and see what I can do). Tiptoety talk 02:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Backlog? Attack! bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
My gosh, I went into battle, came out with many cuts and bruises, and then it appears there are even more articles then there where when I started.... Tiptoety talk 03:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Phew! Got whipped into battle fury there. Well, anyway, the backlog's been reduced now, and I'm exhausted. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 05:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Since LeithP was the one who recommended that I face a topic ban on this noticeboard, how can he have the final say in the matter. As I see it, the community was divided - with Desione and Bobby Awasthi siding with me. If the decision had already been taken unilaterally by LeithP, what was exactly the point of this entire circus? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This refers to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:DemolitionMan thread above, if anyone needs background. Leithp 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears Ronmotel closed that, not Leithp. RlevseTalk 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To be precise, Leithp declared the topic ban, and Ronnotel officially "closed" the thread about 45 minutes later. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hence, isn't there an obvious conflict of interest here? Two admins discuss on their respective talk pages, bring the issue on the noticeboard and take the decision despite at least two other editors besides me disagreeing. How is that a consensus? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
As asked, how is that a consensus? Do the voices of Caucasians carry more weight or are they accorded priority according some Wikipedia policy I am not aware of? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)[edit]

Following a number of heated debates at AfD regarding biographies of the victims of crime, this guideline has been prepared by myself and several other editors, and is ready for wider consideration. You can view the policy at WP:N/CA and comments would be appreciated. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

timestamp to keep from archiving a bit longer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Newb admin with a quick question[edit]

Resolved

Hey, User:Rgoodermote completed a RfA and wrote his acceptance statement, so I transcluded it and users started !voting. Now it appears he was not planing on actually having an RfA for another week and was just using it to work on answering the questions. I told him a better place for that was his userspace and that he should probably withdraw. He has sense asked for it to be deleted, but I am not sure if I should as there is some content, and users have !voted. Not sure if there is some un-written rule or a policy that would help me.... Thanks, Tiptoety talk 02:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Looking at the withdrawn RfA, I see the following:
  • About 3 answered questions, with 10 more that are unanswered, with open spaces waiting to be filled.
  • 3 opposes, the first of which is yours.
I must be missing something, because it looks like you transcluded a clearly incomplete RfA and then !voted against the candidate. Like I said, I must be missing something, because there's no way that's what happened, right? Antelan talk 07:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

YouTube spamming?[edit]

Resolved

Chlipala (talk · contribs) blocked for a month due to editorial comments on talk page

Could someone who isn't cranky like I am tonight take a look at the edits by User:Chlipala, please? He's been adding numerous links to YouTube submissions he's created to a range of musicians and similar articles. I think it's starting to lean into spamming, but I may be wrong. I'd appreciate other thoughts, please... Tony Fox (arf!) 04:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I formatted the link for the editor, but have got a zero contribition list. Is this the correct editor? LHvU (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The link was wrong. It should have said Special:Contributions/Chlipala. – sgeureka tc 09:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
His links seem to all be to copyright violations, so spamming or not, it's not allowed. Deadeyearrow has already left a note on his talk page to that effect. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
And now he's kvetching on his talk page and is going right back to it. It looks more like spam to his specific videos to me, I'll try again. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted them, and left a couple of warnings, amongst them Template:Uw-spam4im (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Whatever reasons, this is spamming, conflict of interest, and violations of WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems[edit]

I can't believe this has gone unnoticed for so long, but we have a five week backlog at WP:CP. I've been working on them myself for the last several days and I just knew someone was going to show up eventually to help, but no one has.

I've been in a solitary mood for a few weeks, and I got January 15 through February 3 done alone and I've cut the backlog from 45 days down to 35, but I know when I'm licked. I need help. It's not as popular as AFD, but it gets bogged down and this is the result. We were very close to a two month backlog, and it kind of flies in the face of all our words on free content and copyright infringement.

Another problem we've got there: the advice to admins page, with the instructions on dealing with the logs, is terribly outdated. It hasn't even been edited since May 2007, well before WP:CSD#G12 was changed to allow speedy deletions of blatant copyright infringement with no assertion of permission. The steps are so confusing and contradictory as to be almost useless, and I think that's why new (and old) admins stay away from copyright problems like the plague. I'm working on changes to the advice page, and of course everyone's welcome. I haven't yet put my changes in, but I need to stop now to, like, sleep.

If you are familiar with the copyright rules and process and can help, please take one of the log days, i.e. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008 February 5, work through the articles and images, then simply remove it from WP:CP (it's not necessary to keep the old log pages like we do at WP:ADD. If 35 admins take one day each, we'll have this done in a jiffy. Thanks. - KrakatoaKatie 06:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added speedy notices to the ones on the 4th and 5th that are obvious copyvios and not notable in of themselves or low quality. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been tied up with some things, but I intend to get back at these today or tomorrow.--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Restoring deleted images..?[edit]

Resolved: working with user on image status MBisanz talk 08:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please restore this image for me:

Image:Giant Panda Auckland Zoo.jpg and if possible restore it to its pride in place in the Auckland Zoo page...

It was deleted fast, as in one day it was there and next... Poof..! I hadn't logged on for a day or two and would have disputed its deletion... The reason I was given for its deletion was that it was decorative (in the page history or on my user talk page)... It was afixed in the history section in the article, in fact in the paragraph detailing how important the Panda's display was in the zoo's history and the image was of the Panda's on display...

I apologise if this page is for admins to post to each other (if I'm not supposed to post these requests here please could a kind soul point me in the right direction) or could an admin have a look at the image, non-free rationale etc and tell me why I'm a moron...

This new editor is getting quite disheartened by trying to follow the rules and having his articles vandalised or hard uploaded images deleted with some "higher" users disregard of discussion processes and 'ahem' notifications...

Kind regards and keep up the great work that the cheating undergraduate students don't even know goes into running this site that makes their assignments so easy... ZoofanNZ (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. I think we can figure this one out. If you need help in the future, WP:ICHD and WP:MCQ are more specialized, but any user may post to this page. MBisanz talk 08:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your pains... I have responded in kind on your talk page...ZoofanNZ (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please block 76.17.200.196 immediately[edit]

Resolved: User blocked by 52 Pickup --The Helpful One (Review) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please 76.17.200.196 immediately. He's vandalizing a page a minute now. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. In future, please go to WP:AIV to report vandals. - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This was the first time I made a report. I will go there in the future. Americasroof (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Need help with dispute with Spellmanloves67[edit]

There seems to be a problem regarding the relevancy of materials being posted on several articles about WebCT, University of California, Irvine, Capella University. Another user, Spellmanloves67continues to place materials about a lawsuit that does not seem relevant to the articles. When I've tried to chat with him, he seems to get very angry. I've noticed that he has been warned many times before as evidenced by the archived versions of his talk page. He also continues to erase his talk page so it is not possible to continue a discussion. I really am not sure what to do but wanted to ask for help here. Thank you very much.Sxbrown (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I will pop over to his talkpage, and see if we can limit those articles that has the link. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Spellmanloves67 has once again added the non-relevant material to the WebCT article. Again, he refused to discuss it on the WebCT talk page. He also stated on my talk page that he "can concede the other areas but will not on WebCT" even after this matter was moderated by LessHeard vanU. Is it possible to lock the article in order to prevent further vandalism? Thank you for your help. Sxbrown (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While this dispute was moderated, Spellmanloves67 continues to restore material that is not relevant to the article on WebCT. He has been very angry and has a history of erasing his talk pages in which he has been warned [Spellmanloves67]. It also appears as if he is now using other login names Lavalamp405 and 75.134.128.140 to make changes to the article. Could someone from Wikipedia help? Thank you very much. Sxbrown (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Header[edit]

Hey folks, something freaky just happened. When I roll over my links on top, they move to the left, and will not go back until I go to a new page. Whazzzup? Bearian (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you make any recent changes to your monobook.js? Or maybe one of the scripts in there has broken--I've had that happen before, and it can be a mess. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive user, complex issue[edit]

Reversion of valid edits, removing tags requesting citations, and reverting, all with some extremely abusive edit summaries. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved
One of the usernames banned, no other contributions from the other two.

Need help on restoring Aging[edit]

While doing backlog clearing at CAT:CSD, I performed a housekeeping move from Aging (life cycle) to Aging. It appears that Jmlk17 and I had done it simultaneously, creating an endless chain of redirects. I got a notice on my user talk page notifying me, but my attempts to restore the history are futile. I really need help, please, restoring. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I could use some help restoring aging as well. Start with the grey hair, yes? Guy (Help!) 23:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 Declined - If I can’t have my hair back, you’ll have to live with your gray. :P —Travistalk 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Block Request For Thegingerone[edit]

Many of the content this user keeps using is typed as if the Rudolph Valentino page is a fan site. Also, the user seems to be one-sided and thinks while The Dark Lover is a reliable resource, Valentino: The Superstar is not. I am also sick of the vandalism this user has presented on different Wikipedia pages, like People To People. I want justice, and this user deserves to be blocked. Kevin j (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All I see so far is a content dispute, and content disputes, by definition, have two parties. Neither is necessarily more at fault when discussion is foregone for an edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible trolling[edit]

I honestly don't know if the two anonymous users 87.221.4.107 and 87.221.5.81 are trolling or if they genuinelly are extreme nationalists. Whatever the case, their behaviour is becoming a nuisance on articles related to Greece and the Republic of Macedonia. We have the over-the-top demands that everybody who doesn't share their view should leave Wikipedia [5], the thinly masked threats that Greeks should use violence [6], racist attacks againt Macedonians [7], [8], [9] (Skopjians is a Greek insult directed at Macedonians). The problem isn't with these two IPs in particular, the problem is that every day of every week, we have anonymous Greek IPs spewing out racist attacks directed at Macedonians. The examples here are far from the worst, just the most recent. JdeJ (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the first IP for 24 hours as it is obviously only being used for trolling and abuse. The other IP only has a couple of edits (though one of them is longer than all the other IPs edits put together) but I will keep an eye on it. Black Kite 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know that ...[edit]

There is a discussion at DYK#Changing_DYK_process on ways of slightly widening the scope of DYK. Please have a look. It would be helpful if a few more admins and other experienced editors could chip in. - Neparis (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mytino and friends[edit]

Resolved: page deleted --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

According to [10], the website Mytino is a confirmed virus. Don't know about that, but the article Mytino is currently a CSD candidate and might want to be taken care of if it's true. The two users involved in editing the article are User:Singleliu and User:74.220.207.67. --NsevsTalk 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir[edit]

Lir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry for boring everyone again with this guy, but I'd like to work with him. I've just been through his contribs and I can see there's some useful stuff there to help the encyclopedia - the problem is his disruption and trolling. I'll be honest from the start - I'm not his biggest fan. I would however like to work with him and act as his mentor, but obviously under strict instructions as follows;

"Lir is placed under community parole. If any of his edits are seen to be trolling, uncivil, assumptions of bad faith or any other form of disruption, he may be blocked for upto one week by any administrator. After 3 such blocks, the maximum block length is extended to one year/indef. He is placed under the mentorship of Ryan Postlethwaite and is expected to abide by his jurisdiction. Further, he is limited to one account and anymore evidence of sockpuppetry will result in an immediate indefinite block."

I realise that he's been an idiot with the socking, but there does seem to be some good in him and hopefully I can knock it out of him. I'm not scared to block him myself, and I would expect him to follow exactly what I say. Anyway, just putting that out there. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found his lack of restraint in the last attempt to be very frustrating, but I support trying again. If somebody wants to seriously write article content, as Lir does, we should try whatever we can. That being said, if he screws this one up, he should be blocked for at least a year before he gets another try. Everyking (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've watched this for years, Lir might be the first time I ever heard about ArbCom. You can try, Ryan, and I know that Lir has submitted great content. My philosophy in this case is the motto, "If you go looking for trouble, you will find it." Collaboration and compromise is not censorship and that's something he has to accept. That's really all I have to say about that. Keegantalk 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Even as I think that we ought to keep an eye on Lar—I've always been a bit leery of adults who like LEGOs—I think the instructions read better were they directed at Lir. Joe 07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Keegantalk 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Joe! You blockhead, how could you say such a thing? As for the confusion about instructions applying to me? It's always been said I don't follow directions well, and there was confusion about Lir/Lar as far back as my RfA (see question 6) All that said, and with a tip of the hat to Ryan for willingness to try, no, I don't think this unblock would be a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ryan notice that I offered to unblock him if he agreed to a similar set of terms and he refused instead telling me i should unblock him and take my case to arbcom to get authorisation. That completely disregarded the fact that I didn't block him in the first place. He has also treats DR like a quasi legal system. However if you can get him to agree to those terms, I don't see why he shouldn't be unblocked - they are very similar to some I provided. However, make sure he really understands the terms, or I will be first to reblock. ViridaeTalk 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, Ryan, I think you're being highly optimistic. I have no hope at all that Lir can become a useful editor again. I did have hope when it came to the lifting of the ban recently, but he did nothing to suggest that he has any intention at all of helping the encyclopaedia. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Is there an section where I can put in my vote on this or whatever? Seriously, why do we want to unblock someone that's caused enough hassle to have been blocked for three years? All that will happen is that a month down the line we'll be back here again discussing whether to ban him again. His ban was so long in the first place because he kept on socking, vandalising, disrupting etc. And he comes back and we want to keep him? Good grief. No. No content is that valuable that we need people poisoning the environment and causing drama as much as that. The harm he's done to the Wikipedia over the years far outweighs any possible good content we might get out of it. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No. This is a bad idea. I can't think of a single instance when one of these admin-led quasi-paroles was successful, and I can think of at least one where it was demonstrably unsuccessful, to the point of disruptive. Mere days ago he earnt himself a re-indef-block, mere days after finally expiring a multi-year ban lengthened repeatedly by his own interminable intractability. There is no evidence that an unblock will cause anything other than further heartache, and before long we'll have yet anohter thread here discussing the block, with someone claiming they thing just one more chance is all it takes. The end of the road was back there somewhere. Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not therapy; for anyone. Splash - tk 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The contents of this edit (removed inexplicably by the 'single purpose tagger') are interesting. Splash - tk 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting certainly but why would someone create a sockppuppet account in order to accuse others of being sockpuppets? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure this is a such a great idea. Ryan, I know you've worked miracles before, but Naerii is right. We can do without Lir. Any worthwhile content he might contribute is not worth the price we will have to pay - the disruption he will inevitably cause. Moreschi (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, no. When an umpteenth chance lasts less than 48 hours, there is no chance umpteen+1. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please no, I'm getting flashbacks. I don't think this is a good idea at all. And the idea of having to cycle through three one week blocks is rather "sigh-some". I was all for giving Doc's unblock a go but all he did was prove that he hasn't changed one iota since his banning. I would be really surprised if Lir even agreed to this or took it seriously beyond seeing it as an opportunity to resume his trolling and disruption. With utmost respect, Poss - you know I adore you - but this just seems to me like a very bad idea. I think that people who haven't been around all that long and don't realise how much disruption Lir caused back in '04 and '05 should look through the Arbitration pages and his old talk page archives and see that his recent behaviour is pretty much what led to his Arbitration case. It's not like he just came back feeling disenfranchised and pissed off and will get over it with a touch of mentoring. This is what he does and how he behaves. Sure, he makes a few good edits to mainspace articles but he is too disruptive and has made it clear time and time again that he has no intention or desire to do anything but troll us. Sarah 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I'm the one who reblocked Lir after Doc's attempt at giving him yet another last, last chance. If you do go ahead and unblock, I would recommend that you arrange in advance a complete prohibition to claims of censorship, one of his favorite trolling baits. — Coren (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose Ryan's proposal, if only based on the statement "knock it out of him". I doubt that, given my relatively short familiarity with Lir's personality, any method that includes any suggestion of force will achieve desirable results.
Aside from that, it doesn't seem like Ryan actually has very much in common with Lir. On the other hand I share interest in the discipline, propose collaboration on articles, and integration of Lir into an editorial team, and a Wikipedia Project. Aside from the fact that there is way too much writing to do within the project to worry about all the other issues, there are competent admins in the Project that are able to deal with any situations which may arise, and be able to evaluate Lir's probation over a period of 6 months, which I think is a significantly longer period to evaluate a person's intentions and abilities then a day.
Coren, while I appreciate your statement, I think the approach used in mitigating Lir's behaviour, and in community's ability to emphasize, has been less then ideal. While several editors above have expressed Lir's return from a negative perspective, I think a bit of positive thinking would not go astray, right? Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article! Surely that seem to indicate good intentions? He also starts to express his opinion on Wikipedia on his user page. So what? Do you think New York Times reporters are going to use Lir's user page for an expose on Wikipedia? I looked at it when I first read his declarations on the article talk. So the guy has issues with authority, tell me something new! The page had nothing to with the article, so I wrote to him. Lo and behold, beyond the facade was an editor with actual knowledge of the article subject, good sources, and willing to, even impatient to contribute! For crying out loud, does every 'tree' need to be uprooted to 'plow' a Wikipedia field?! I for one would be shocked if anyone returning from such a long ban had no feelings at all to express on the experience. Bitter and twisted people often suppress feelings and thoughts, and lie low, hatching plots. I don't see Lir doing this at all, so enough with amateur psychoanalysis, characterisations and labels. This isn't some TV drama. --Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article!
Wrong. His very first edits were as an IP , and they were to build his User Page as a billboard against The Evil That is Wikipedia and How I Have Been Done a Great Wrong. His very first edit was "I am the Lir. What I've realised is that the Wikipedia has been overrun by a bunch of morons. I used to care -- now I don't. The idea of a Wiki is a great idea, but the Wikipedia is überghey...", and his very first article edit doesn't come until after nearly three months of soapboxing. He's not really here for the editing. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What Lir did as an IP is another matter. However, lets try an experiment. Lets ban you for a year for a reason you don't agree with, and see how you feel about it later. I am not supporting Lir's behaviour, but I do understand it as typical of individuals in similar circumstances in the real world. Believe it or not, but Lir's behaviour since his most recent unbanning was normal! You just failed to recognise it as such. Did you expect a placid angelic-like Lir singing praises of those who banned him? If he did, that would have made him a liar, and anyone able to lie to oneself, can lie to others, those being Wikipedia readers. I would rather an editor called me a moron a hundred times then he/she write one lie that will be read by a thousand. Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie. I can live with that. Chill out Calton. Allow me to explain to Lir why calling people names, and living in the past is not healthy. Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned because currently he is still running on fight/flight instinct.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What Lir did as an IP is another matter.
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Lir = IP, and its editing is his editing. The rest of your comments make even less sense: he was blocked for a year, yes, and his behavior is what led to the constant reblocking and the additional 19 months of block time.
Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie.
I'd say trying to hide your identity through sockpuppets counts as lying, but let's leave that aside. You believe that jackass behavior and trolling is okay if you're sincere, do I have that?
Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned
So his not understanding why he's doing something wrong is a reason NOT to ban him, do I have that? You've officially gone through the looking glass. --Calton | Talk 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If you constantly hit someone over the head ("constant reblocking") to prevent behaviour, but behaviour change is not internalised as justified, the only thing that will change is the punshment avoidance strategy (not to get hit). You only joined Lir's vicious cycle, solving nothing.
Using sockpuppets (in this case) is not lying, but rather evading being constantly hit over the head.
Well, I didn't know there was anyone watching me...officially. Is 1984 your favourite book?
Lir understands very well what he did wrong, but seemingly others like to constantly remind him of this and make a point, a very large point, of showing him they don't have any intention of letting him forget. There is all this great talk of "Wikipedia community". Do you know what a community looks like, or do you live in front of a screen? A community is not judged by its firewalls alone. Community also welcomes, appreciates, understands, etc. All I have heard is "defending community". Let me spare you the time; lets have a welcoming interrogation committee so no-one will ever get banned. May I remind Wikipedians that we are a part of the freedom of information community, so lets not become the paranoid brigade.
What has Lir done wrong? He decided to create a user page that may be seen as undesirable? You Calton live in a country notorious for public scandals over deeds by public officials. You come from a country where morals of presidents have been found wanting. On a scale of Wikipedia "sins" within the thousands of user pages, does Lir rate public enemy #1? You (plural) have treated him as one, and he obliges every time. What a surprise. You'd rater have editors writing articles who will cower every time they are challenged...not. (Japan excepted; a different culture there)
Have you banned Lir because he consistently shows POV, uses OR, never cites sources? This is what I am saying, did you ban an editor, or his personality? If it the later, its only because you failed to 'connect', and seemingly never tried. You are the community "shoot first, ask questions later" cop. I had to connect, because I have the intention to collaborate with him. It all comes down to purpose and motivation. It seems too me Lir's most recent banning was snowballed, so please lets take a pause now that Lir has, and consider all sides of the argument for and against unbanning Lir. All he tells me he wants to do is edit articles. If he is lying to me, then I will be the first to support his indefinite banning and you will never hear from me here again. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You are talking such rubbish because you don't know Lir and we do. He tells he only wants to edit articles, he is lying and you are naive. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You only joined Lir's vicious cycle, solving nothing. - Actually, banning him outright seems to have solved everything neatly, without Wikipedia having to act as his therapist. As for the rest of your strange and tangential moralizing -- well, it was hard to read, what with my eyes constantly rolling. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. No unblock. I had my doubts about letting him come back after reading his history, and after this past weekend, it's obvious he's too unstable for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that he is threatening to sock (in an email to me) but they all threaten that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir joined Wikipedia in the early days, back when there were few rules, only Jimmy Wales could ban people, & we tried to talk the problems & disputes out. Lir couldn't handle even that permissive environment. People with a lot more patience than I tried hard to mentor Lir; it didn't work. So he was banned, & the only reason he wasn't banned for good then was that the software didn't permit it. I'm honestly amazed that he avoided getting blocked again as long as he did this time around. -- llywrch (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep him banned, forever. Lir has much to contribute by way of trolling and headache, but nothing useful besides that. His antics predate many of the users on this page who now so naively want to unban him, not realizing what they are getting themselves into. Much as he might need one, Wikipedia is not his therapist. Raul654 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it. How much are you willing to bet that as soon as he strays from the confines, he'll start yelling for the restriction not applying to him without arbcom sanction, yell and shout as soon as he's blocked about censorship and cabals? — Coren (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What the heck was Lir banned for in the first place? It seems that the RFAR was a mess, and he was only re-banned after he sockpuppetted, but I've got to tell you, I would sockpuppet too if I was unfairly blocked and no one was listening to me. It seems that Lir constantly talk about corruption and the cabal. THE CABAL EXISTS, there was evidence in that secret mailing list story that I just read. Of course most of these admines responding keep him banned are probably part of the cabal. I can say that Lir seems to have thrown some personal attacks but most were misconceptions and several personal attacks have been thrown at him too. Therefore, a new RFAR seemsto be in order. I would personally do it myself but I don't know that much about the case. Editorofthewiki 19:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's see. This is going to be nowhere near the complete history, but it should give you some idea of what his wonderful personality is like: He edits with an extremely distorted view of reality. He got into many, many edit wars, ruining a number of good articles, frustrating other legitimate users involved in them (causing several to quit), and Lir used many sockpuppets (in the days before checkuser and finding them was hard) to do so. When banned, he would use sockpuppets to duck the ban. He lies constantly - having conversations, then claiming he did not have them, then somehow remembering that he did in fact have them; claiming to have several adminsitrators and bureaucrat sockpuppet accounts, etc. On one occasion, after one editor (User:168...) had left because of Lir's constant harassment and trolling, Lir registered a near-identical username (User:168..) and pretended to be the original 168... returning after quitting in disgust. When confronted with sanctions for his behavior, he would claim censorship and demand due process (as defined by him). When banned by an arbcom decision written primarily by myself, Lir came back under sockpuppets, and created an article about my advisor. The article was complete fiction made up whole cloth by Lir, and was extremely libelous (claiming that my advisor was involved in Woo Suk Hwang research scandal). Oh, and Lir also filed a false police complaint against Phil Sandier (aka Snowspinner), claiming that Phil's fictional stories on his blog showed he was unstable and posed a danger. The police gave Phil a hard time, but after a story on boing-boing appeared showing their harassment, they went away. I'm sure I've omitted lots of stuff, but that should give you an idea of the kind of person you are dealing with. Raul654 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this decided by consensus? ( I would be one of those opposing). Dapi89 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Communuty bans are typically decided by the lack of admins willing to unblock. So far no admin has been willing to do that and my recent experience with lir leads me to believe that he is still very much the same problematic user that he ever was and would strongly advice against unblocking at the present time. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Dapi89 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is no one willing to unblock because of the realisation they would find themselves under scrutiny of the above-mentioned cabal? In any case, there seems to be a propensity for dealing with the past rather then the present. In the current case, what was Lir banned for?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Listen: I don't really know much about the Lir case. I was just looking at wikipedia pages and did a very small amount of reasearch and most of the evidence against Lir is years old. It also says according to his unblock he is blocked from unblock en 1, which of course was the decline reason. I'm not sure whether that's possible--I personally believe it does--but I think that Lir herself should be able to have something to say about the above. I believe he should be unblocked to submit something below or file a request for arbitration. Editorofthewiki 01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir should be given a fair hearing, so that he can be found guilty or innocent; that is the only logical way to handle banning policy. It seems to me that for several years, Wikipedia has had a very clear and established policy that an individual could only be banned through the dispute resolution process, which still exists; first you must tell someone that you feel they did something wrong and try to resolve it with them (Lir has bent over backwards complying with every demand made of him), second you must request mediation in the case of article disputes (has Lir had any recent article disputes?), third you must request arbitration (this was not done), and finally the arbitration committee is to issue a resolution and give an explanation. The only traditional exception to this policy has been in the case of "clear and obvious vandalism", which does not apply in this case, as Lir has not vandalized anything.

Unfortunately, some users have tried to circumvent the entire existing system of policy, and have thus came up with the notion of 'community consensus', which does not apply in this case, because six users have requested that Lir be unbanned, and therefore consensus does not exist. So, lacking consensus against Lir, he still deserves a hearing. It should also be noted that Lir is currently banned from the mailing list, from IRC, and from his own talk page; it is thus shameful that he is not even allowed to try and generate support for his cause, and it is even more disgraceful that he has nevertheless found such support, and yet that same support is simply being ignored by those who continue to claim that there is "consensus" against Lir.

Of course, advocates of the "community ban" will assert that any administrator who wishes to unban Lir should feel free to do so; however, first of all, Lir was already unbanned in that manner, and he was then immediately rebanned without any chance to rectify whatever grudges are held against him. Clearly, the community ban policy cannot succeed, as there will then be an 'edit war' over whether or not to keep Lir banned. Meanwhile, there are administrators who want to unban Lir except that A) they know Raul will find someone to immediately reban Lir, B) they are afraid of being persecuted by Raul, and C) they feel that there was never any kind of public community vote in support of this 'community consensus' policy, and it is therefore ridiculous to have to fight against a rule of "consensus" for which there is clearly no consensus.

At the very least, considering the lack of community consensus, Lir should be allowed a chance to respond to the allegations against him. We have all heard Raul give unsubstantiated evidence about what Lir supposedly did years ago, and he has thus clearly indicated a long-standing grudge and personal bias; but none of that should be in the least bit relevant to the present situation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you be happier if I said it was true? (It is.) Your idea that Raul654 is "persecuting" anybody is utterly laughable. I didn't think anyone actually believed Lir when he spouted that stuff. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:DYK in need of updating[edit]

The update's five hours overdue, in need of an administrator to do it. I don't have the time to do it myself else I would. Wizardman 01:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. It shouldn't be getting this bad, maybe we need some more frequenters of it. Wizardman 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What about adding the status update box from Template:Did you know/Next update to the top of one of this page of AN/I? Since only admins can update the page it is obviously an "admin issue" and considering the traffic of both of these pages, it would go a long way towards keeping the updates happening in a timely fashion. AgneCheese/Wine 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily do that, although could parserfunction magic make it appear in CAT:AB if it was overdue? ^demon[omg plz] 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New ArbCom Clerk appointments[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that effective immediately, AGK (Anthony), Daniel, and Rlevse have been appointed as additional Arbitration Committee Clerks. The committee appreciates their assistance as well as the work of the current Clerks and of Clerk helpers/trainees Coren and Jayvdb. For the committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brad! :) Daniel (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers ;) AGK § 07:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all arbs for their vote of confidence.RlevseTalk 10:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Congrats, all. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope they prove better than that fellah we had to promote out of harms way, a little while back... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SYS Linux[edit]

Is there any chance we could have an early closure of this AfD? This article has no chance of surviving, but discussion with the original author seems to be dragging on, and not going anywhere. I'm not fussed if we wait out the 5 days, but the discussion is clogging the AfD page a little ;) -- Mark Chovain 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a discussion as a monologue. Still, he seems like he's trying to improve the article, so I believe we should let the discussion run its course. - KrakatoaKatie 04:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thats more like a book than a AfD. Tiptoety talk 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
An exceptionally boring book, at that!Gladys J Cortez 12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved the discussion to the talk page of the AFD. --Fredrick day 14:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus incident: policy corrections needed either way[edit]

I am seeking comment on an incident that is nothing but an extraordinary outcome from the inconsistent application of policies and administrative philosophy.

  • At 18:34 GMT, March 12, User:Piotrus was reported for violation of WP:3RR at WP:AN3.[11]
  • User:TigerShark blocked User:Piotrus at 23:05 GMT, March 12, 2008 (see block log) and reported the block at WP:AN3 at 23:07 GMT.[12]
  • At 04:20 GMT, March 13, having served little more than 5 of the 24 hours, User:Piotrus' friend User:Zscout370 unblocked User:Piotrus with the following rationale: "I looked at the diffs, both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism. Just work it out". No unblocking message with the unblocking rationale was posted and there were no reference to a rationale being an outcome of a discussion that took place elsewhere (we still old-fashionedly assume that whatever takes place at IRC, the wiki-actions need to be justified onwiki, save exceptional (OTRS, RFCU) cases.

After the unblock, the user who filed an original complaint, politely contacted the unblocking admin for clarification. From the discussions that took place later, Request of clarification, IRC unblock and 3RR comments (I am giving permanent links above and below, but please check the current versions for later updates), we can figure out the following course of events:

  • Piotrus, himself an administrator, engaged in rabid edit-warring against two different editors and an IP account. He also abused his rollback privilege to revert disputed content edits and typo corrections (permalink)
  • After a 3RR report ( permalink, please check for discussion updates) User:Piotrus was blocked for 24 hours by Tigershark
  • User:Piotrus courted for an unblocking on the #admins IRC. ("asked in a general channel to all admins, then those willing to take on the case were sent PM's".[13]) and User:Zscout370 agreed to review it. He claimed that [by IRCPM] he strongly warned and cautioned User:Piotrus to just sit down and start discussing.[14]
  • Sometime later, according to User:TigerShark, User:Piotrus contacted User:TigerShark on the IRC and said[15] "that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC" and then "lectured" User:TigerShark "on the risk of being de-admined", and that User:TigerShark "was lucky he [Piotrus] had woken up in good mood".
  • Piotrus, then makes an outrageous allegation at RFCU that two of his long time content opponents resorted to sockpuppetry after their many years of WP contributions

Besides the specific instance of edit warring and rollback abuse, largely obsolete since stopped and already processed at 3RR, we still have issues that require clarification or the policies correction (disregarding, since this is an ethics issue on which opinions vary, Piotrus' usual resorting to behind the scenes action)

  1. problematic unblocking, even if good faithed. It may well be regarded as OK for an admin to undo another admin's action (unblock), and often the agreement of the blocking admin is not sought (often for a reason), but this is usually done only after some discussion has taken place, especially if the admin is unblocking a wiki-friend. The latter condition rather excludes the possibility for a unilateral unblock taken without onwiki discussion (except for undoing an obvious abuse) which could potentially cause a lot of bad faith. Similarly a history of animosity is supposed to exclude unilateral blocking, save blatant editing abuse. Perhaps our policies are not clear enough and require elaboration.
  2. lack of posted rationale Even in cases where unilateral unblock is appropriate, the complete rationale is needed. The unblock rationale was flatly lacking here. Neither the explanation for the unblock, nor the warning, nor the reference took place on wiki. Remember, you're not supposed to "refer" to the off-wiki discussion, exceptional cases aside, and if such discussion took place the explanation of the action should be fully given onwiki. Several policies mention the need of on-wiki rationale for wiki actions. Should we make it more conspicuous?
  3. spurious unblock summary that says "both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism." This was clearly a content dispute and there were no instances of anything even in the same universe as vandalism. This can be verified by anyone who cares to check the diffs The only thing to suggest vandalism was User:Piotrus's use of rollback during his reverts (you will notice that among the content changes Piotrus rolled back were English and typo corrections, e.g. the rollback restored electional for electoral, vicinage for vicinity and Enlightment for Enlightenment.) As for "both parties" ... as User"TigerShark commented ... how is this exonerating? Anyway, WP:BLOCK does not say anything about the unblocking summaries. Perhaps because many think that common sense is enough. Is it?
  4. Further, Piotrus' attacking TigerShark, boasting being unblocked, threatening and claiming one's being above policies . This is clearly a problem. Credit must be given to User:TigerShark for keeping his cool about this.
  5. Frivolously insisting on checkusering. This is more serious than AGF. This is also a privacy issue. While it is important that everyone is able to request checkuser without repercussions, should there be sanctions for clearly frivolous requests? We cannot rely on checkusers' simply rejecting them. This is an abuse of their time and, largely because they lack time already, they may not be able to investigate the validity of every request to see its merit. Again, this is just common sense and perhaps follows under general disruption but it happens. Someone requested a checkuser on me for being a sock of someone who I took to arbcom. So, it happens now and then and seems like common sense is not enough.

Please see (permalinks may need updating) Zscout's talk [16] [17] and 3RR thread for the fuller context.

If all or some of the events listed are acceptable, the community should authorize them and change those policy wordings which now either suggest to the contrary or are silent (which is not good enough in view of above). If it is not acceptable, the community has to do something and cover some of these things, such as use of IRC, RFCU, BLOCKing and unblocking in the policy. Thank you for your time. --Irpen 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While a checkuser was asked, it wasn't asked in a frivolous manner. I have seen at least 5 checkusers asked for a day, and that is only when I am on. Pretty much, when I looked at the unblock policy, they listed email and other admin review to check as acceptable means. So discussion doesn't have to occur on wiki to say yay or nay for blocks and unblocks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for this Irpen. I did notice these events, and made a brief comment (as you probably saw) on WP:AN3RR. You are certainly correct that these procedures need clarified, esp. for guys like me who are new admins. I think many would find the way this was conducted quite outrageous, esp. those concerned with the potentially subversive role of the IRC not to mention TigerShark who, as far as the evidence is concerned, was overruled without being consulted for no apparently good reason. I do agree the unblock rationale was weak to say the least.
Certainly you're correct that no vandalism was involved, and Piotrus was besides the only one to violate 3RR. Sure other users there were reverting, but the 3-revert rule is there for a reason ... it is an absolute maximum. If 3RR is only to be apllied when only one user is reverting, you might as well get rid of it. In Reality-land (as opposed to Shouldbe-land) content disputes happen, and 3RR is good way for reducing its inevitable impact. I really think more admins ought to read Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement, and linked pages thereof, to get an idea of how and why this rule came into existence.
So I share your concern about the procedure, esp. if Zscout and Piotrus are known friends (which I couldn't say).
As for Piotrus' use of rollback, I'm sure this must have been a one-off mistake. Mis-hit the button? The alleged intimitation of TigerShark by Piotrus would be concerning, but I can't believe for a moment that Piotrus would do this. Maybe miscommunication?
But to return to the main point, indeed, clarification of policy concerning this kind of thing is indeed needed. I strongly hope this will be forthcoming. I'd also like either 1) Zscout comment on his interpretation of Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking and explanation of how he used it in this situation or 2) the latter be changed to sanction these events. We certainly can't have a situtation where such a strongly worded policy is routinely ignored by admins, esp. in order to unblock their friends via IRC. We have to remember that wikipedia operates on trust and mutual respect between users, the fair application of policy, particularly in regard to administrator actions. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I stand by what I have said about anonymous editor (whom I reverted, and the reverts were counted towards 3RR) being disruptive and trolling on several related articles. I have raised this on admin IRC, several admins commented, the consensus apparently was to unblock me and block the anonymous editor.
I am disappointed by TigerShark's behavior; he was rather incivil in his email replies to me, and apparently both misinterpreted my emails and quoted parts of them out of context. That said, I consider his behavior (and judgment) 'water under the bridge' - I don't know TigerShark well enough and everybody is allowed to err now and often. There is however another editor whose behavior is more problematic:
User:Irpen has been found in the recent arbcom to have often been in conflict with me; and to have acted uncivil on numerous occasions (do note that the arbcom has not found anything wrong with my behavior). The ArbCom has even discussed a restriction on Irpen preventing him from interacting with me. This incident represents an unfortunately common pattern (discussed in the linked arbcom): Irpen following my edits, commenting on discussions unrelated to him (but related to me) and fanning the flames in discussions involving me. I find Irpen's report here and criticism of me to be highly unjustified, and if anything merits attention, it's not how I was reverting disruptive edits of an anon and a likely sock, but his stalking of my person.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sysops do not have any special privileges regarding unblocks over any other editor. If you want to contest a block then I suggest the use of the {{unblock|''your reason here''}} option, rather than canvassing #admins for an unblock. I would comment that I believe using #admins an abuse of process, in that there is not the transparency apparent in using the unblock template - and that those admins on IRC unwilling to unblock are not represented. If I found that an admin I had blocked, in good faith, had got themselves unblocked by using such a method I would immediately re-instate the block and review the actions of the unblocking sysop, too.
I realise that people can make mistakes, but that should not be compounded by acting outside of process - if there were good reasons to contest the block it should have been made at the time using the unblock facility. You condescending attitude toward a fellow admin, Tigershark, is noted.
Whatever your feelings toward Irpen, this is a proper bringing of a concern to the Admins Noticeboard. Commenting on the history between you and this (other) admin does not begin to address your apparent disdain for practice and procedure in the manner by which you went off site to have yourself unblocked. Nothing you have said justifies your actions here.
I shall notify Zscout370 of this discussion, and invite their views on this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I already posted above, so I am aware of this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
So you have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
And, as I pointed out on my talk page, I been asked to clarify a few hours after the unblock but didn't get to it until I woke up the next morning. A lot of what you want me to say here I have already said to MK and Irpen on my talk page. Yes, off-wiki discussion happens a lot about block making or block reducing. I remember being at #wikipedia and kicking users out for asking for unblocks. Later on, I was asked not to do that anymore, so it became a place to unofficially (at least on wiki) to ask for unblocks. It's like trying to email a user, except you get more faster responses. I personally think with these articles on Eastern Europe (which I also edit), there is a lot of gaming by IP addresses and arbcom cases abound. I personally felt that it was strange for an IP address to make one or two changes, then a new account comes in and takes over. I have seen this before and other admins choose not to block in this manner. As for not talking to TigerShark, there has been a lot of decisions involving me that pretty much occurring without my knowledge. It is SOP for admins not to speak to each other with regards to blocks, or anything else for that manner, unless it is mandated by ArbCom decision (such as with BLP's). I have said all I wish to say for right now here, but I can address specific concerns at my talk page where I can focus on yall one by one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just reviewed Wikipedia:Appealing a block. I note the allowed use of the unblock option on the talkpage, contacting the blocking admin by email, and referring the block to ArbCom. While it is noted that Piotrus did contact Tigershark on IRC, it appears that it was after the block was lifted and the discussion reported did not seem to be one of seeking clarification. If there has been the practice of not contacting the blocking admin then I missed that memo, and the policy page seems similarly uninformed. I note that #admins is an appropriate venue to discuss blocks one wishes to place or have placed, but not as a place to have ones own overturned. This is not looking great from where I am standing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Zscout, I can only speak for myself here, but I don't find your explanation acceptable atm. Could you please comment on Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking. This is policy, and it contradicts your last assertions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have said all I want to say on the unblock itself and the unblocking policy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocking admins for technical infringements is not usually a very productive way of handling a dispute, even someone with opinions as strong as Piotrus' can usually be stopped from making an ass of themselves by some less extreme means, such as emailing them and reminding them not to make themselves look silly. So I don't have a problem with Zscout's unblock, honestly it was no big deal and was evidently done in good faith. Piotrus' retaliatory accusations and IRC comments, though, are a bit more of an issue. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Admins are not exempt from 3RR. Reverting blocks issued to admins because they are admins (which isn't what anyone claims has happened) for 3RR violations undermines the preventative value of the 3RR and of course creates an impression of unfairness. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody is. But any long-standing contributor who steps over the 3RR line and then indicates that they won't do it again, should be unblocked. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Thise of us with more than a few months' editing (and discounting the seasoned edit warriors) will normally calm down and realise we've been daft; serving out a block for a technical offence is not really required in such cases unless we genuinely think that letting the block stand will serve to prevent further disruption. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am less concerned with Zscout370's unblock - although a comprehensive unblock rationale would have been nice - than the way that the unblock was requested. If it was an obviously poor block, and I have no opinion on that although I AGF of Tigershark reasons, then it could be clearly stated in the unblock request on the blockees talkpage. I get tired of telling people that sysops have no more editing rights than other users, only for a sysop go and do something that gives admin bashers more ammunition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at it myself my problem with the unblock is the assertion that it is SOP for admins not to talk with each other about blocks. I was asked about this on my RFA last year and I am sure if I had not said that I would discuss unblocking with the blocking admin as per policy the RFA would have failed very easily. Davewild (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins must be help to a higher standard level than editors for the simple reason that admins have been entrusted by the community. If an admin edit wars and violates 3RR then they must serve the entire length of the block. Bstone (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking, "[a]dministrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Neither of these appears to have taken place here. Secondly, Piotrus was blocked as an editor. Regardless of whether the block was right or wrong, his adminship is irrelevant, because he wasn't blocked as an admin. AecisBrievenbus 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • So s/admin/longstanding editor/ and the point stands. Did anyone try to remind Piotrus before he hit the third revert, that it was time to take a deep breath? Guy (Help!) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

PS to my post above - there is one thing I forgot to add, and perhaps this point is the most relevant to those who are new to admin powers and 3RR. The 3RR rule is not meant as a punishment; it is a preventative tool. It is supposed to be used to stop an editor who shows no signs of stopping in a revert war. Now, it should be relatively clear from my contribs/page that I know when to stop - it is not that the 'experienced contributors are 3RR immune', it is that 'they usually know better'. Whether one agrees I was reverting an anon vandal or disagree, the right thing to do in such a case is to (semi)protect the page and drop me a warning I may be going to far. The wrong thing to do is to prevent me from creating content, which I do on a daily basis (right after my unblock, which thankfully happened a few minutes after I realized it, I went on the to write another DYK). I used IRC because it was the fastest way to ensure I would be able to create content, I had checked out materials (a book and journal articles) in front of me, time to write a new article right there and than and did not want to waste it waiting for an email or wikispace reply. Do note that after my unblock I did not edit war on that page again but I went to create content (which as anyone who would review my contribs would note is my standard editing pattern). The bottom line is that we are here to build an encyclopedia - and not to create bureaucratic empire and wikilawyer over intricacies of a policy; the block was not helpful - since I would not have reverted on that page again anyway (I thought I was at, not over my 3RR limit there) - but it would be preventing me from creating content. Yes, TigerShark acted according to the letter of the law, but I believe that the spirit of the law is much more important here (per WP:IAR, WP:BURO and so on). Once the letter of the law takes over, I am afraid the Wikipedia project will collapse in the mess of wikilawyering and bureaucracy. I am glad to see it is not yet the case, and I intend to create much more content before (if ever) that happens. Now, I think I have said all I indent to here; no disrespect to any who posted here or will, but I am off to create more content :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis[edit]

I have looked into this case carefully. Summary and thoughts follow.

Facts of the edit war

This was an edit war via reversion, between Halibutt (talk · contribs) and Piotrus (talk · contribs) on one side, and M.K (talk · contribs) and 62.212.208.65 (talk · contribs) on the other. It took place between 9 - 14 March at Republic of Central Lithuania, and the initial focus was the unannounced attempt to change "Vilnius" to "Vilna" by Halibutt, and its reversion by MK, followed by a 3 day revert war between the two gorups of two. A few other edits were done, also "part of the general revert war". Both sides claimed the other was a "distortion". None of the four seem to be sockpuppets; and none of the four acted well. All edit warred.

Piotrus, an administrator, was reported to WP:AN/3RR by MK, an opposing editor who had not breached 3RR but had edit warred (as they all had).

The report was valid and Piotrus was blocked by TigerShark, an administrator since 2006, for 3RR, but TigerShark did not go beyond the obvious to see if anyone else was at fault for edit warring, probably since nobody else had been reported at 3RR. Other administrators Dmcdevit and Stifle blocked 62.212.208.65 and Halibutt respectively, for edit warring too. (MK was not blocked, although equally involved.) During the edit war, users on each side had each called each others edits "distortion" and on one occasion each, "OR" and "vandalism". Piotrus also called his and halibutt's the "preferred version" although in fact the version he called "preferred" was not the stable version at all for this article, but the new version created by Halibutt that triggered the edit war. The article had been stable from 9 March, back to 24 December (with only about 4 edits in that time), up to the point Halibutt first edited"Vilius" to "Vilna".

IRC

I have reviewed the channel logs on IRC and can therefore comment on the next step. The logs themselves are private obviously.

Roughly speaking, Piotrus states he has been blocked and that the block was placed by someone criticized for blocks at arbcom and suspected on an RFCU of IP puppetry on the article in question. He states that being blocked for reverting vandals is not good and claims that as an "experienced admin" he should be warned and does not deserve blocking. He describes the incident as possible sock IP(s) making disruptive edits and states the two users are "pov trolls" who have been parties at Arbcom, and that he knows they are sockpuppets and he is mostly sure he knows who of. Two admins mostly respond to help him, Zscout370 and another. The other mildly reproaches Piotrus for reverting spelling and non-proper-word fixes by another user during the edit war, which is unhelpful, and states the reversions were fairly poor quality edits even if there was an edit war going on. (ZScout370 states he will help fix them on-wiki). Zscout370 - likely in good faith - also decides to unblock Piotrus. In his unblock Zscout370 states "both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism".

Other comments

This was the end of the actual dispute visible to me. Discussion on Zscout370's talk page and ANI took place, in which Irpen commented. Further statements made (summed up) were:

  • Piotrus to TigerShark (according to TigerShark) - "Piotrus contacted me and told me that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC, and then lectured me on the risk of being de-admined and told me that I was lucky he had woken up in good mood. I do note that the admin who unblocked him still felt that he had violated 3RR, but felt that other parties had too (not really a reason to unblock)." [18]
  • Zscout370 - "3RR is always discretionary, so what one admin thinks violates 3RR another might not think. Piotrus discussed with me the problem and asked if I or other admins can look at it. I did look at it and I personally feel that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR. So that was my justification for the unblock. As for who the IP address belongs do, I do not have the ability to check that" [19]. "If I can be frank, this is an issue that happens a lot on Eastern European articles (I work on Belarusian articles) so I know the possible gaming tactics. He asked in a general channel to all admins, then those willing to take on the case were sent PM's" [20]
Analysis

Nobody really acted well here. The four users all edit warred, and especially, Piotrus joined the existing edit war rather than (as an administrator) acting in an admin capacity, to calm it, or help it finish. TigerShark correctly acted in blocking Piotrus (in my view) but could probably have thought to check if others were edit warring (not just WP:3RR) so it wasn't just one sided; warn all four of them to cease the edit war (in fact they did at that time anyway), and perhaps drop Piotrus a note to help him think about how as an admin he could have helped better.

A weakness here was that everyone just thought in terms of WP:3RR. Wikipedia:Edit war is policy too, and clear edit warring (which this very obviously was) is not okay even if it is under 4 reverts a day.

Piotrus I feel did act improperly, but this should have been caught. Visiting IRC to ask for an unblock is fine, as would emailing unblock-l be. But his descriptions of why are grossly inaccurate, his statement that he should have different treatment from the norm when in fact he has breached a more demanding standard as an admin is slightly shocking, and his description of his opponents is questionable, and in fact has now been looked at by two checkusers who feel it is not by any means evident. (It should be noted that I am AGFing a bit here by assuming Piotrus genuinely did have this belief.) He also described a new version as "the preferred version" when in fact it was only his preferred version. In fact a more factual analysis of his claims are that these were not "vandalism" by any definition in WP:VANDAL; there is no 3RR exemption for reverting edit warriors (although there is for obvious vandalism); there is no slacker standard for "experienced admins" compared to any other user (indeed they should know better not worse).... almost everything stated was inaccurate. (A further observation is an apparent over-certainty, which comes over in the way he tells an anon editor "dear anon, please consider registering and not participating in edit wars", declares the new version "the preferred version" for this article, and so on.)

Zscout370 does not check this carefully, and states that 3RR is "discretionary" and that an "IP editor" started it and that the IP then got a new account to avoid 3RR. This is fairly good corroborative evidence that he probably relied upon Piotrus, since a look at the page history shows clearly that in fact Zscout was wrong on almost every particular, and his errors followed Piotrus' description on IRC. In fact Halibutt (not an IP) started the edit war, and prior to the edit war there had been only 4 edits in the 2.5 months from Dec 24 - Mar 9... only one of those was by an IP, and that IP made one edit that was not at issue in the edit war. Also the IP that was warring, joined the edit war after its co-warrior MK, so it didn't "get a new account". Further, whilst anything can be IAR'ed, the disregard for edit warring is not really okay, and one doesn't unblock a user because some other user wasn't blocked too. Edit warring bad. That said if Zscout370 honestly did believe Piotrus then he would have been right to unblock; the problem was he essentially overturned another admins block on the say-so of the blockee, who for whatever reason did not describe it accurately... and he never checked. In any practical sense, Irpen was right to comment he was duped, but that would never have been a problem if he had done his job properly and checked (or at least, consulted).


Summary

What do I think should happen? Its a week now since the incident, and the matter is stale, the edit war over. I think those involved -- the 3 non-admin edit warriors and Piotrus -- should reflect hard on their actions, and if similar matters come up again consider that their actions may gain more scrutiny since they were not okay this time. Zscout370 who acted in good faith but poor judgement and didn't check for himself... also learn from it. I don't propose to take any action. I don't see the need right now, and we don't do "punitive" here. But there are lessons, for sure.

As always, if anything here is factually in error or unfair, please let me know and I'll correct myself. It is a complex edit war and perhaps possible that I have missed something.

FT2 (Talk | email) 09:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


About blocking for 3RR violations I've seen several different approaches - there's the traditional block of the violator(s) usually for the traditional 24h if the violator has knowledge of the rule, but there's also been the warning of one party, the warning of both parties, the decision to block none, the blocking of both parties or the protection of the page. All of these can favour or disfavour persons and I'm not going to argue which rule is the better one and if one particular rule to deal with violations should be generally adopted at all. My point is simply that a sysop has pretty much free choice, that much is simply decided by their judgement. Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong, but in this current situation of having more or less a free hand, I think that this power mustn't be misused under personal favouritism.

It was at least questionable unblocking Piotrus, who had then been behaving quite admin-unlike, reverting content-related changes on eleven different pages as far as 24h prior to the report were concerned, generally not marking content-related reverts (except when misusing the rollback function three times), little or no discussion and overstepping 3RR twice (once self-reverting after the 4th). (Shortly after being unblocked again, Piotrus further reverted twice at History of Lithuania.) The other circumstances pointed out throughout the topic add to it. TigerShark is a regular at the 3RR board and had no previous encounters with Piotrus as far I can see. But Piotrus and Zscout370 have had several (very friendly) ones, including when either was under fire: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] What has happened here - using a murky one-to-one IRC conversation with someone (or several?) friendly-inclined to get unblocked rather than the standardised neutral and transparent approaches - is plainly wrong. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2, your summary of events matches my understanding and is very clear and coherent. Thank you!

Regarding 3RR, I personally am not of the opinion that users involved in content disputes should be terrorized into not reporting 3RR violations. A large chunk of the reports on WP:AN3RR are users reporting their content dispute "opponents". WP:AN3RR is the main instrument by which 3RR violations are monitored, the rule itself enforced and thus the "electric fence" upheld. Do we really want to cut the hand that feeds it, or rather, cut the power to the electric fence?

Frankly, contrary to what some people state, the 3RR blocks are punitive. Their punitive nature acts in practice as a deterrant and thus protects wikipedia. Thus it is not the case that "punitive" and protecting wikipedia are mutually exclusive. They shouldn't be merely punitive of course, but that is not what's [usually] stated.

At some stage in the last year or so someone or a bunch of people have moved on from 3RR as the main way of limiting content disputes to punishments for "edit warring". The discourse community made up of a number of admins has resolved that 1)edit warring to the limit of 3RR is "gaming the system" and 2) that gaming the system is "bad". My own view, human beings will always game any system, and they'll game any new system introduced to prevent "gaming the system" and so on ad infinitum. Our civilization is built on gaming the system! If the 3RR system is not limiting enough, refine the system rather than preach about the old one being "gamed". The new way of dealing with content disputes, leaving interpretations of "edit-warring" and resulting punishments at the "discretion" of admins is the worst possible. The admin community ... and I'm speaking now as a member ... is not competent or trustworthy enough as a corps for this. Such freedom for admins causes more trouble than it's worth, e.g. vandal-zapping admins blocking good content creators for reverting IP troll and vandalism because they didn't put the effort or (frankly) don't have the intellectual skill to detect the nuances of a content dispute.

So in relation to M.K., I cannot have agree that he outght to have received any more than a warning. TigerShark handled the 3RR violation, and blocked for this as the community authorised him to do. The community has never promulgated anything that forced TigerShark to block or warn other editors for edit warring, and even the highlyu preachy Wikipedia:Edit war does not in any way suggest M.K. or Halibutt must have been punished too. He doesn't or shouldn't have been expected to do any more than that. TigerShark did right in keeping up the electric fence, and MK in powering it. At the very least we could wait until TigerShark gives some input before criticizing him for not proactively punishing other editors. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Um, sorry, but that gets a TL:DR here. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with most of FT2's analysis but I do refute the suggestion that I did not check the edits of other. The article history looked like this at the time I reviewed and blocked. My analysis then, and now, is that over the previous 24 hours Piotrus had reverted 4 times as part of a content dispute (as opposed to addressing vandalism etc). In the same period of time, I cannot see another user reverting more than 3 times, apart from Halibutt (who was already blocked at 10:48 that morning) Some users had groups of edits so that their edit count was higher than 3 (e.g. the 3 edits from Halibutt between 10:12 and 10:44), but I would consider each group as a single revert. On this basis, the number of reverts, in the 24 hours before Piotrus's 4th revert at 17:07 on the 12th, would seem to be:
  • Piotrus - 4
  • 62.212.208.65 - 3
  • Halibutt - 4
  • M.K - 3
In terms of how recent the reverts were - Piotrus's last revert was at 17:07, 62... made their last revert at 13:41, Halibutt's was at 10:44 (albeit that they were blocked at 10:48) and M.K.'s was at 9:39.
Looking at the ongoing trend, from March 9th (4 days), the number of reverts was:
  • Piotrus - 5
  • 62.212.208.65 - 5
  • Halibutt - 7
  • M.K - 5
So, on the whole, this was not a rampant edit war with large numbers of reverts by individuals. The only editors that actually violated 3RR were Piotrus and Halibutt. I blocked Piotrus and would also have blocked Halibutt if they had not already been blocked. 62... and M.K. may have touched the 3 edit limit, but just once, did not have a lot of reverts over the whole period and, by the time of my review, had not reverted for a substantial amount of time.
I would also like to point out that at the time of my review, neither 62... nor M.K. were in danger of violating 3RR. They could both of have reverted right then, because in the preceeding 24 hours they both only had one revert each.
Further, in my opinion, M.K. did not need to be warned as they had raised the report at WP:AN3 - so were aware of the 3RR policy (I do not consider the warning as a threat, rather as a notification that the limit exists - which M.K. must have known).
Those are the facts surrounding by review of the edit war, as I see them. I would hope they do support the assertion that I did review the situation, and may question how closely the situation was reviewed by others.
As for my opinion on the other matters, Piotrus clearly knew the 3RR policy (having been blocked previously in regard to 3RR) and had violated 3RR. The block was therefore good in my opinion, and this seems to be the general consensus. Certainly the only reasoning that Piotrus provided to me for him not being blocked, was based upon his experience and the amount of content he contributes. From the FT2's IRC analysis, it seems that the email to me was not the only place that Piotrus tried to use his experience as a reason for not being blocked. At best I would consider it irrelevant, and at worst his experience makes violating policy even more unacceptable. It would seem that at least one other editor considers that there is some special privilege from experience to the point of not be subject to policy as much as the next editor - I strongly disagree with this. I was also unhappy with Piotrus's email to me, especially claiming that admins get de-sysopped for acting in the manner I did.
I do not consider Zscout370's unblock to be justified, partly due to the facts raised in my analysis above, but also because the reason for unblocking given was clearly against policy. The fact that he did it without consulting me is not ideal, but going against policy so clearly is far more worrying.
I think that is all I have to say for now. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


So, what is the outcome, if any? Is this case closed, or was it just archived? I had noticed this "4 equals 3 for some" incident. I was very displeased with several aspects of it, but I was not surprised, which is the most unpleasant aspect of it all. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

People, I request another block for the user Thegingerone if he/she continues violating the NPOV policy[edit]

Before we start any conversation about an edit war, I would like to first address who exactly has been trying to preserve this policy. That is what I have been doing with every edit I have made to the Rudolph Valentino page. This user has been typing bias content in the Rudolph Valentino article, like that: he was the only lead actor in The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: that he was a better onscreen lover than Douglas Fairbanks; that he came to America with $20,000.00 in his pocket; and that some facts were unproven rumors. Singing voices also do not determine one's natural voice. For example, look at Jim Nabors. He had a Southern drawl but still could perform opera quite well. This user deserves to be blocked for violating the NPOV policy.Kevin j (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this issue may be suffering from multiple posting. See above at #Rudolph Valentino page. Both User:Thegingerone and User:Kevin j have requested help at User talk:EdJohnston. I gave 3RR warnings to both about Rudolph Valentino, and someone else has full-protected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Kevin, you have a lot of good criticisms of the article, and the edit ideas you have are useful. Edit wars, however, are not useful. Please use Talk:Rudolph Valentino to make your points. Please work with other editors involved to get the language right for the article. Collaborate and be civil. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Has Wikipedia Gone Topsy-Turvy All of A Sudden? I have no intent to slander anybody, but it is ridiculous the way you keep labeling us as both equally on tract. Read the pages we have typed on the Rudolph Valentino page. The user Thegingerone does vandalism to this page by writing like it is a fan page, and has written many bias content that is unproven.Kevin j (talk)

What? Justin(Gmail?)(u) 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Once Again, I'm Asking has Wikipedia Gone Topsy-Turvy? I personally find it prejudice the way you administrators have been labelling me as equally at fault as Thegingerone. The user Thegingerone damages the Rudolph Valentino page with POV vandalism, and continued with it on the Pollyanna page, where the user said that the film Pollyanna was the main turning point in Mary Pickford's career. Read the page histories for yourself. The user deserves a block, and I wish you people would not act with bias accusations against me and assume I'm just as at fault when I am not. I care for the NPOV policyKevin j (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has not gone tipsy turvy. This is just a common content dispute, and the reason why you may feel that we are placing the blame on both of you is that you are both edit warring. Please let us work this out without continually commenting on our behavior. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For the Third Time, Has Wikipedia Gone Topsy Turvy? No, this is not a common content dispute, it is an issue pertaining to POV vandalism. I know the vandalism policies and I know about the NPOV policy as well. The user does do it, and you administrators should take a good look at the content in page histories.

Once again, I personally find it prejudice the way you administrators have been labelling me as equally at fault as Thegingerone. The user Thegingerone damages the Rudolph Valentino page with POV vandalism, and continued with it on the Pollyanna page, where the user said that the film Pollyanna was the main turning point in Mary Pickford's career. Read the page histories for yourself. The user deserves a block, and I wish you people would not act with bias accusations against me and assume I'm just as at fault when I am not. I care for the NPOV policy. Also I'm am not whinning or demanding for my want. Bigotry is unacceptable.Kevin j (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting on this page. The matter is being handled. You are being disruptive. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As the issue is being handled, it is generally improper to ask the same question three times when you are not satisfied with the answer you receive the first and second time around. I strongly recommend that you let it go. I won't say that raising concerns is in itself disruptive, but - in this case - making new posts on old issues is not productive. I'll add that, if you truly believe that the admin in this case was wrong to warn you, the best way to prove that he/she was wrong would be to edit productively from now on. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this user is having trouble with Wikimarkup? He's allowed to post here. I removed the equal signs and replaced them with bold. Three posts just became one conversation. No comment (as I've not researched) as to his complaint or any complaints about him. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I need some more eyes[edit]

I think the edits of Babakexorramdin (talk · contribs) (Iranian) could use a little more scrutiny, as this discussion worried me a little, not least the...ah...interesting interpretation of WP:RS and the rather obvious Iranian nationalist POV on display (for further examples, check out his edits to Talk:Iranian peoples). Given this, I think any edits this chap makes to Perso-Turkic articles could do with a little extra scrutiny.

And while you're at it, the same applies, for a different set of articles, to Marcos G. Tusar (talk · contribs) (Slovenian, see here for more information). Moreschi (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, delete Image:DesktopBSD desktop.jpg[edit]

DesktopBSD logos and artwork is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License. Austria. See in http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=76, see policy for non-free content, this screenshot Image:DesktopBSD desktop.jpg contain logos and artwork with this license, According to policy for non-free content and Wikipedia:CSD#Images.2FMedia, Image:DesktopBSD desktop.jpg should be deleted immediately. Thanks, Shooke (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, use {{db-i3}} to tag such images. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Shooke (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo in an article name[edit]

Resolved: Typo fixed, heading to fix any resulting double redirects now. FunPika 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let the head administrators of the site know, the article for Lewis Black's show "Root of All Evil" has been changed to "Lewis Black's Root of All Evil." I noticed though, that instead of Lewis, his name was spelled with a typo and instead the article is titled "Lews Black's Root of All Evil," and "Lews" needs to be changed to "Lewis." I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, but looking through wikipedia's millions of pages to find where to correctly post it was hell to find, so I'm hoping this works.

Lews Black's Root of All Evil

PS - I hope this is all correct this time.

28:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jason Anthony Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) stubbified[edit]

This is notification that I have blanked the article Jason Anthony Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular, large unsourced section about controversy, three month old tags on the page relating to verifiability. Some of the older diffs aren't too nice either.. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added back the filmography, as that seems to be completely uncontroversial. I feel this blanking was draconian, and have said so to Sceptre (on IRC). Simply removing the ridiculous 'controversy' section would have dealt with any real BLP problem. By comparison, I supported Sceptre's blanking of Hal Turner, which really did have issues. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason to announce this here. John Reaves 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's fair notification. If I just went around stubbing articles without telling anyone, I'd get blocked. This way, I'm keeping my intentions totally transparent. Will (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, will watchlist it. Note to J Milburn: No, not draconian. Normal practice in egregious BLP cases, we don't know if there's subtle vandalism embedded in the other content. Good editors are always welcome to reintroduce that material which complies with policy. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I accept that- as I said earlier, I agreed with Sceptre's blanking of Hal Turner. However, I refute completely that this is a serious enough case to warrant blanking. (On another note- gah, draconian, not draconic. Too much D&D...) J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I understood you intention. I choose poor wording for some reason. Just seems like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard would be a better place. John Reaves 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. If you do check, it's crossposted there too :) Will (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiStalking[edit]

Sickero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User (who mentions on his own Request for Adminship page that he knows he has "had problems in the past with vandalism") made a large unsourced addition to the Norteños article which I largely wrote. I specified that the information was unsourced/unreferenced, but he undid the changes without any explanation or addition of a reference [28][29]. Now he insists on stalking me by randomly undoing any anti-spamlink or anti-vandalism/unreferenced edits that I make. Diffs for at least four different articles include [30][31][32][33][34]. Not sure if there is a better place to report wiki stalking, but there you have it, retaliatory undos. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in at least a couple of those diffs, Sickero makes the SAME changes you make after ANOTHER IP reverts your changes. Check, for example, that Hip hop fashion diff. On the Mara Salvatrucha article, what I see is a slow-motion edit war with NO discussion on the talk page between the editors. Rather than reverting and re-reverting, why don't you try discussing it with Sickero (though there are others involved as well who should probably be included in the conversation). Since these are gang articles, of course they're going to be contentious--people are likely to have VERY strong opinions about the gangs they belong to/know much about/affiliate with. (I am not, incidentally, talking out of my butt about this one. I know of whence I speak.) So--summary--yeah, there are a couple of diffs where Sickero is reverting stuff with no reason; a couple of those diffs, though, don't show what you think they do. (Like the MS article--he's been there for a while too, so it's not like he followed you there.) It looks to me like you have overlapping interests, and just happen to disagree in several places. Talk first, revert later, please. Peace. Gladys J Cortez 13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lost (TV series)[edit]

Resolved: Page restored. Spebi (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone restore Lost (TV series)? I think it got accidentally deleted while we were fixing Grawp's most recent page moves. I've been trying, but the restore screen keeps timing out. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That has well over 5000 edits, it shouldn't have been deletable even in error, or is this a loophole/bug? Gimmetrow 07:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering that too. Still no luck, I've tried every method I can think of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This may need a dev. Would there be any support to move-protecting most featured articles? Gimmetrow 07:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh oh, redirects to that page are getting deleted under R1 now.