Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive163

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

Noticeboard archives


Yanksox removing my comments[edit]

Yanksox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tells me that I am not allowed to edit as an IP, and I am not allowed to edit for a month. For that reason he has been removing my comments. [1] and [2].He originally claimed that it was an arbcom rulling (which is not true, see here), then when I tried to talk to him about this he decided to ignore my comments and remove my comments again this time telling me to use my "main account"!!! Now you see the problem is I don't have one any more, I have intentionally locked myself out of it, and I do not want a new account for reasons I have mentioned before. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with an account or without, and I want to edit as an IP. The ArbCom has made absolutely no restrictions on any of my editing, except saying I need to run for RfA again, so why won't Yanksox let me edit? I have never voted for anything as an IP, I have brought some info to an AfD discussion without even giving my oppinion on it, I'm not violating anything. Could someone please help me out. (People responding to this, please refrain from using my old account name, though it's quite obvious, call me 00:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, the arbitration ruling says you may not edit for a month. It has not been a month. -Amarkov blahedits 00:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You did not read anything I said... it does not say that .-- 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"1) Should (name) return before one month without permission to do so, the block shall be extended for an appropriate period from the date of his unauthorized return.". That means "you are blocked", meaning that an IP is a block-evading sockpuppet. -Amarkov blahedits 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Fred Bauder: As it stands now (name) is desysopped, but free to edit anytime he choses-- 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Now back to the issue - Yanksox is very well aware of this, I have given him that link on his talk page, yet he still removes my comments.-- 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoting what was passed by arbcom, not a side comment: [[3]]
Premature return
1) Should Konstable return before one month without permission to do so, the block shall be extended for an appropriate period from the date of his unauthorized return.
Passed 5 to 1 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's what they voted. Georgewilliamherbert 02:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, how many times do I have to repeat myself [4] I would go file a request for clarification, but it is clear enough, just that nobody is reading!-- 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Please see this question from me and Fred's answer. Proposed remedies 1 Konstable blocked and remedy 2, Return of Konstable did not pass. Therefore the enforcement provision is void. This is not a side-comment. It was posted in the Implementation notes section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision, and if any of the arbitrators had disagreed, they could have made further clarification before voting to close the case. Thatcher131 02:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Thatcher.-- 02:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131, could you please remove the voided section from the "final result" then? That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable clerk discretion (the section is null), and would remove a clause which we just saw cause great confusion. Georgewilliamherbert 02:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask about it. They knew it was there and voted out the case, so I'm not sure how far to push my discretion. Thatcher131 02:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Having been one of the people active in workshopping that case (although I was not officially a party), this issue was specifically raised by me as well. It was specifically agreed by the arbitrator who had originally proposed the ban that because the one-month ban was not enacted, the proposed enforcement was vitiated and did not take effect. It is clear that this user is free to resume editing at any time. Beyond that, he was a fine editor and administrator until the events that led to the case (which should not be rehashed) and I would strongly encourage him to resume editing. However, I also urge him to assume the good faith of anyone who was misled by the wording on the arbitration case page. Frankly, I was afraid that precisely this would happen and I should have stuck to my guns that the page needed to be fixed at the time (I was the only one commenting by the end of the case and I didn't feel I should push another point, but I wish now that I had.) Newyorkbrad 02:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Thatcher& Newyorkbrad. Before I kill someone I will go stop editing again. Nobody wants to hear my explanations, and even Thatcher's explanation (where he provided the exact same diff as me...) was ignored when I was just blocked. Wikipedia is just too hard. If I don't create a new account this happens, if I create a new account I will piss off other people, it's a deadlock.-- 02:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't kill anyone (metaphorically) and please edit whatever you want to. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume you would rather not have a connection to your old name? Otherwise you could create User:Konstable III and just link to this explanation. If you would like to maintain some privacy, I suggest you create a new account and then e-mail me with the name. If someone thinks they recognize you and asks questions you would rather not answer, you can refer them to me. Thatcher131 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I rescind all previous comments and extent my deepest apologies. I suppose I just had one massive "brain fart," and there was no ill intention behind this. Though, I could say the comment about citizenium didn't exactly help. But with that aside, I hope that no trouble and come out of this and a true resolution has been reached. Yanksox 00:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


This guy is leaving bizarre comments on my talk page: [5] can someone nip this in the bud? Thanks. -THB 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC) And he's keeping track of it: [6] I feel like he's stalking me, see his contributions. -THB 20:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Now he's aksing how old I am, someone please get him to stop, I don't want to respond to him any more. Aren't there rules against this??? -THB 20:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah look guys, I ve seen all this before.I think Ive learned from my trips down this dead end road. I know what happening and I just want everyone to to a few deep breaths and cease posting each other. Please do not continue the converstation as it will only provoke more nastiness. You both know it makes sense. Thanks for listening. Things will seem a lot more trivial tomorrow (Xmas Eve!)--Light current 20:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that User:Ned Wilbury has done anything wrong here. Your post to the refdesk was a bit unusual, and certainly crude. When you post something along those lines, you're going to get a reaction from more established users. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes but we dont want any reaction, so that this thing cools down before it boils over! Yes?--Light current 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Could someone have a word with THB? I'm not sure where the bug in his bonnet came from, but he seems to be a little bit off-kilter today.
I think it would really help if everyone here took a really deep sip of eggnog. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes Ten its a bit silly, but as Ive explaned to Ned, this is a reaction to his recent block. 12 hrs and it will be over! I have had some words with THB to assure him that he is not under attack. So please dont make me look like a liar! I have asked all admins to cool down and give some space. This is working at present so i would ask once more for Admins to show good judgement and AGF in THBs case. Also reporting here what he is doing on his own user page is likely to increase his paranoia so I would ask that unless THB violates any rules, that we all stop talking about him here. Is that fair?--Light current 22:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Er, THB isn't blocked right now, that I can see. And I can't see how Bishonen blocking THB leads to THB demanding that Friday be desysopped...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I would therfore submit that the two things are unrelated! 8-)--Light current 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD running out of control[edit]

Could someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey? This AfD ran out of control when one deletion proponent got rather upset about what he suspected to be a WP:POINT article creation and a votestacking campaign on the keep side (an unproven but not quite baseless suspicion). Debate ran extremely hot bordering on personal attacks; then the article was moved and merged with other material while the Afd was still running; wherupon some votes were changed and the whole picture is rather muddled now. Right now, spirits are hopefully quieting down again. I've suggested an early provisional close, for later reexamination. Fut.Perf. 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

<edit conflict> You beat me to it... It would be better for them to continue on the article's talk page for the time being. yandman 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've closed it - you're right, it was out of control. Hopefully the discussion about the article can continue on the talk page, the vote stacking claims elsewhere, the Turkish discussion on the Turkish wikipedia and the personal attacks nowhere. Yomanganitalk 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some concerns over vote stacking at that spesific afd. The concern is that there are way too many greek voters on a topic that isn't about Greece but about a 'historical enemy' Turkey. I hereby request an independent review of the vote stack claim. --Cat out 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of votestacking in the past on both sides when it comes to Turkey-sensitive articles. This is hardly new. Patstuarttalk|edits 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This way to Deletion review → Guy (Help!) 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As per star trek deletions I am absolutely certain WP:DRV and AfD are both broken procedures. --Cat out 23:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are they broken? Because you didn't agree with the result? Please consider taking the time to express any concerns you may have about these procedures at the village pump, as you may have valuable insights other Wikipedia editors may have missed. Proto:: 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not mind it when people disagree with me, I just find the entire afd procedure broken for quite some time. Star Trek afds are a mere example.
Think it this way: if vote stacking did happen in the afd, history will simply repeat itself on deletion review.
--Cat out 13:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the recent Star Trek afd+drv rather show that these two processes work. In spite of "I like it" (!)votes. I know that saying "process X is broken" has been on fashion for some time (e.g., it's commonly repeated on the mailing list); however, that does not make it true. Tizio 13:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be a deletion process with an extended probationary period to allow for discovery of reliable sources, and then an objective decision based only on the multitude, reliability, triviality, etc. of the sources. —Centrxtalk • 10:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This presumes that any topic with reliable sources is worth having an article on, an opinion that, at the very least, is controversial. --Improv 04:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If you mean that topics for which there exist reliable sources should not have articles, this would be a deletion mechanism alongside AfD, to cover the many AfDs where sourcing and notability based on sourcing is the problem and reason for deletion. Articles that belong deleted even with sources could still be deleted on AfD. —Centrxtalk • 02:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Severe revert war going on here: participants include User:Dodoria, User:Zarbon, User:Dasnedius, User:SUIT and User:TTN. All except TTN appear to have violated 3RR by now. Maybe protection is in order? (I'm posting here because it seems a lot faster than making three or four 3RR reports and making a page protection request.) Heimstern Läufer 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and added it to WP:RFPP too. Heimstern Läufer 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I just blocked User:Zarbon for two months - this is at least his fourth block for 3RR violations, and there's a post on his talk page where he calls another user an "idiot" and a "maniac." I'll try to work through the history here for the other users to see if anyone else merits a block, but Zarbon's long history of 3RR vios clinched it for me. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Article has been protected by Nishkid64, so hopefully this'll die down. Heimstern Läufer 21:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I blocked Dodoria 48h (although I really think it's a sock of someone else), SUIT for three hours, and warned Dasnedius (no evidence s/he knew the rule). | Mr. Darcy talk 21:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to close the loop here, Zarbon and Dodoria were confirmed by RFCU as editing from the same IP, and both have been indef-blocked (Dodoria as the sock; Zarbon for being the master, repeated 3RR vios, and incivility). Hat-tip to Deskana for some major assistance. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling my edits "bullshit"[edit]

Among other things...[7] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What other things? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
A rv saying I was "pushing an agenda." Telling me to "grow up." Then, even when I have a talk page section trying to generate consensus regarding my edit rather than edit warring, my edits are called "bullshit" as opposed to "legitimate controversy." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Try WP:DR, it has worked wonders for me in the past. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL, if ever I decide to call a peer's edits "bullshit," I'll be linking right here for my "Pass Go." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"This is not wikipedia's complaints department" - see either WP:PAIN or the dispute resolution process if you actually want to solve the dispute instead of just trying to get your "opponent" in trouble. ---J.S (T/C) 02:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've started a dialog on the respective talk page instead of edit warring, so I'll take my Get Out of Jail Free card and think about who's edits remind me most of bovine excrement. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

'Stop fair use' => what is the appropriate action regarding this[edit]

User:ROBERTO DAN is spamming Wikipedia-space pages with a notice regarding a WikiProject aimed at 'stopping fair use'. What is the appropriate response to this action on the editor's part? I considered reverting as trolling - but I wasn't sure if this qualified, rather being spamming in the service of a WikiProject. Sorry to be so wishy-washy - just wondering what the best course of action would be. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would give spam warnings, I will if the user has not been warned already(After reading the contributions of course). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see now it is just one page, well this does seem like an ambitious start for a new user, but not really in violation of policy that I can see. I would ask the user what experience he has had here before and in what form. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I jumped the gun a bit ... the editor has only 'spammed' two Wikipedia space pages - which doesn't constitute spam ... my apologies (it's the caffeination) - but the general question still stands ... thanks, BC; the related question would be what to do with the additions - remove or retain? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The user is proposing a policy change, albeit by casting a vote in poor English, but this seems to be in good/misguided faith. I would let it sit for a while and the user will be told the same by those who participate. It does not seem disruptive to me(currently). Of course I invite others to disagree. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Dosn't the german language wikipedia prohibit fair use? That might be where this user is from perhapse? ---J.S (T/C) 18:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
He is from the Spanish Wikipedia ... see Commons:User:ROBERTO DAN and es:Usuario:ROBERTO_DAN. --BigDT 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
While this petition to stop fair use on the English Wikipedia is ill constructed, the issue does have proponents on both sides. I for one would rather not have to worry about if an image is fair use when I want to use it on a template, or my own website.
I am not sure which end of the debate I would end up on if a serious attempt at consensus was made. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It would sure solve alot of problems, but articles about books, movies and games would be alot less interesting. ---J.S (T/C) 18:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
True, The Dark Side of the Moon comes to mind. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Spanish Wikipedia stopped using fair use images fairly recently, so I think this person wants the same result on English Wikipedia. Though I personally feel that fair use should only be used if we have to, I do not think we can get rid of it completely. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've always wondered what might happen if I gathered an army of meatpuppets from here to swarm into the Spanish or Portuguese Wikipedia to tell them that their featured articles should be referenced. ;-) Grandmasterka 04:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Somethingoranother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[edit]

Problematic user, please review. I erred by assuming good faith and inexperience yesterday and only blocking him for 3 hours for POV-pushing and edit-warring on Ireland. He has since moved on to Argentina where he recently made (I think) his fourth revert in trying to change the map from a png to a gif he has made. He made a complaint about me here yesterday for what I think he sees as my interference with his aim of changing several fairly controversial articles (Northern Ireland and Falkland Islands have also received his attention) to conform with his own POV, without any regard for consensus or discussion towards such. I said at the time it would be better if his next block came from someone else; I think the time has now come for other admins to review his edits and take whatever action they deem necessary. Thanks in advance. --Guinnog 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the combination of his behaviour and apparent political motives are worrying. As he's been blocked once before for a short period, I've blocked him for 24 hours for WP:3RR violation, in the hope that he will take the day off to understand what is expected from contributors. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
At time of writing, Somethingoranother is requesting unblocking based on the fact that only two users disagreed with him. (For some reason, presumably brevity, he leaves out the fact that zero users agreed with him.) (Wrong, actually, someone did agree but didn't participate in the revert war - and the objection was purely political anyway, the reasons against the change being far more clearly expressed.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Sam. Yes, some (though still a minority I think) of his ideas are actually quite reasonable ones, and some of his edits before he got into these controversial areas were of good quality. It is the people skills that seem to let him down and I think he may need mentoring of some kind if he is to survive here, assuming he wishes to continue after his block. --Guinnog 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor is moved again - fourth time, same user[edit]

Holodomor has been moved to Soviet Famine of 1932-33 twice in the last six hours, both times by the same user (Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)). This is the fourth time he's moved it since November 30. It's a rather controversial topic, so I've reverted him the second time, and will hold myself to WP:1RR. The reason I reverted is that this move has been made before, and unmade before, and there was no discussion on the talk page about it this time. I'm not going to request protection, but I thought I'd make note of this here, just so some admins can keep an eye on the situation. See also the Talk:Holodomor#Moved to Soviet Famine of 1932-33 section on the talk page. Picaroon 04:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have move-protected the article and referred the editor to WP:RM. -- tariqabjotu 04:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Jacob Peters has been a disruptive force for weeks on this and other articles - NPA violations, grand mal sockpuppetry, refusal to sign his talk comments, and on and on. If he keeps this up for much longer I think a community ban is called for. - Merzbow 05:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
All recent edits from Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) have been reverted. The original changes were not valid to begin with (e.g. for his page move [8], he claimed that no pact called "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" was signed in spite of the fact that the name is in common use [9]). He also was tagged for sockpuppetry.[10][11] --Sigma 7 06:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Zombir (threats, vandalism, personal attacks)[edit]

Zombir (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) appears to be a new account used only for nationalistic vandalism [12] and racist/nationalist personal attacks [13][14][15][16]. Zombir has made threats to another Wikipedian, saying "I know where you live in Vancouver, see ya soon" [17]. Though the account was created today, the user seems familiar with user warning templates [18] which leads me to believe that the account is a sockpuppet, possibly of a banned user. —Psychonaut 11:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Mufljuzi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) appears to be another sockpuppet making identical edits. —Psychonaut 11:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If you don't know who the main account is/was, the implied threats are probably sufficient to have a checkuser run at WP:RfCU. Newyorkbrad 12:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Needless Reverts[edit]

User:Lambiam is making needless and wholesale revisions to my edits that are correcting spelling mistakes and refuses to make any compromise on this issue. I have warned him on his talk page here User_talk:Lambiam#Spelling, but the user hasnt even the courtesy to reply, he just reverts Snorkel | Talk" 12:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See also #Wholesale spelling changes. Luna Santin 12:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


The westlife page has yet been again vandalized. I suggest semi-protection because it's the same IP range that vandalized the page. [Please Revert the vandal] --Cahk 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

File a protection request at requests for page protection. The edit in question has already been reverted. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Block not showing up in block log[edit]

I indef-blocked User:Zarbon earlier tonight for confirmed sockpuppetry/multiple 3RR vios/incivility, but for some reason, it's not showing up in the block log. I just tried to block him again, but the system is telling me he's already blocked. Anyone know what's going on? | Mr. Darcy talk 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me a while ago [19]. Thoughts, anyone? --210physicq (c) 04:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a similar thing happen to me when I blocked an inappropriate username yesterday. I can't find it in my logs, otherwise I'd link. Alphachimp 06:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"I can't find it in my logs, otherwise I'd link". I just had to laugh at this. Folks, this illustrates the difficulty in proving a negative :) Philwelch 07:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Two ideas come to mind. First, we should report this on Bugzilla if it hasn't been already. Second, I wonder how you were able to unblock him. Did he appear on the IP block log? If not, how did you unblock him? Philwelch 07:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked him normally - if you look at his block log, you'll see two consecutive unblocks, because the interim block isn't showing up. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocks not showing up on the block log have been an uncommon problem for quite a while already. special:ipblocklist still reports the block though, if it is still in effect. 11:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Evasion of block[edit]

I have reason to believe the user Ullr Siffson (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is evading a recent block which was set upon the IP user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) by (aeropagitica). This person appears to be the same in both instances as they both revert to the same version of the article, which appears to be in violation of WP:NOT, as it is guidebook material. The article in question is Alpental. Two diffs follow with notes:

  1. [20] - The diff referred to by (aeropagitica) in the notice on the IP user's block page
  2. [21] - A zero byte difference with a little over an hour's time between the IP's block, and the Ullr's reversion to the edit.

I have explained WP:NOT to the IP user as best as I could prior to issuing a longterm4im upon another subsequent reversion to an edit that was not in compliance with WP:NOT (guidebook, specifically), which the user subsequently disregarded, leading to the block. Just over thirty minutes later, presumably the same person reverts to the same edit, calling his actions "censorship restoration", a deceptive edit summary in my opinion.

I have decided to step back from this situation, and was advised to make an entry after conversion with another admin about this same issue as I was unsure as to whom to notify at the time. Kyra~(talk) 10:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48h for 3RR vio. If Ullr is the same editor as the anon IP editor - seems obvious that he is - then all four of his edits are reverts, and he's in violation. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Longterm IP - Vandalism[edit]

For quite some time a group of kids from a school in Germany have vandalised articles by inserting the name of their teacher, their own or names of classmates in articles about various football clubs or towns (as famous players/managers/mayors ect). Also they included facts they made up, so that they would be picked up by the various wiki-mirrors. These are a little more difficult to spot and I noticed them only after investigating due to finding the obvious vandalisms. Yesterday got blocked. At about same time the whole range got softblocked in leu of semi-protecting the three articles currentlyinvolved. The user in question has managed to escape the blocks due as he changed his IP-Range to (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to carry on. Obviously will need to be blocked for blockevation at the moment but further advise/action is needed (the admin who handled the protection request appeared off-line, but is notified. Agathoclea 14:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See here for further background. Agathoclea 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As the rangeblock didn't work, I've semi-protected the three articles currently involved. This strikes me as having less potential for collateral damage than bigger rangeblocks - though if he moves on to other articles we might still need one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Channing Tatum[edit]

(section moved from WP:AIV --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Several sockpuppets have been repeatedly vandalizing the Channing Tatum article, even after repeated warning by myself. User:sam Syms, User:Don Zering and User:Sam Zannino all make non-notable, unsourced edits designed to elivate the profile of a certain model Vincent De Paul. You will see these edits in the history of Tatum's article as well as my warnings on the offender's talk pages. I think it's obviously sock puppets since it's unlikely that three seperate users would collectively have such an obscure agemda. However you may be able to help in this matter is greatly appreciated. If any action is taken I;d greatly appreciate some notice on my talk page. Thank you for your time. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 17:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I've blocked Sam Syms and Don Zering indefinitely as sockpuppets, and will issue a 3RR warning to Sam Zannino (as the first account). I'll be logging off in a little while, so if you guys disagree with my blocks, feel free to unblock without further discussion with me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition[edit]

Can someone please review my actions on Goa Inquisition. I first became aware of the problem when Rumpelstiltskin223 reported Xandar to AIV for repeated blanking (see this edit for an example, it's basically just a revert war between those two versions: [22]). When I reviewed the case, I decided it wasn't obvious vandalism and was actually a content dispute, and blocked both users for 3 hours for 3RR violation. I also reverted the page to Xandar's version, since I felt it was best to have the version which didn't make controversial accusations be the one visible while the issue is discussed. User:Bharatveer then reverted my revert, giving a very similar edit summary to mine (how his version can be considered the safer version, he didn't explain). I reverted him and left a message on his talk page asking him not to revert again and saying I'd protect the page if he did. He did revert again, leaving a message on my talk page about placing disputed tags rather than removing the text. I reverted again (my 3rd revert, for those counting), and protected the page. Opinions, please. --Tango 15:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch Tango. I endorse your actions. The last 100 edits all seem to be edit-wars. I also see a lot of 3rr evasion and gaming going on. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This might be related to the Joan of Arc vandal. Akhilleus has included Xandar in his checkuser request on suspected JoA vandal socks WP:RFCU#AWilliamson. One day after a different checkuser request specificially related to Goa Inquisition got declined I spotted CC80 on the list, whom I strongly suspect of being a JoA vandal sock. DurovaCharge! 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Tango (talk · contribs) used admin powers in an incorrect way to further the edit war. He could have merely protected the article in interim but since he reverted a user on the article, I dont feel he had ample right to protect it. Xandar's version is the vandalized, censored version of the article. Wikipedia doesnt publish what is "safe" it publishes what is verified. With durova's new evidence. I smell trolling on the part of CC80 (talk · contribs) and Xandar (talk · contribs) (who most probably are the same person).Bakaman 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally, I would agree that admins should protect whatever version is showing when they get there but, in cases of controversial accusations, I think it's best to play safe. There was debate on the talk page as the whether or not the accusations were verifiable, so playing safe meant I assumed they weren't and removed them. I didn't investigate to see if they were valid or not (I since have, and I don't think the source given is very reliable, it's an opinion piece.) - that's a content issue and is "not my job" for want of a better phrase. --Tango 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The Checkuser request mentioned above has been done. User:CC80 is a sock of AWilliamson, and has been blocked. User:Xandar is probably a different user than CC80. For more details see WP:RFCU#AWilliamson. 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion from below, I see now reason not to keep it all in one place. I know people check the bottom of this page, which is why this section was put at the bottom when I first created it. There is no point putting it at the bottom again. --Tango 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tango and use of admin privileges[edit]

In a edit-war that ensued on Goa Inquisition, User:Tango who is an administrator, used admin tools to revert-war three times with another user. Misuse of rollback and then reverting to his own version – [23] [24], [25], and then protecting the page – [26]; after reverting to his own version, calling it a safe version in his edit. A discussion over this is avaiable here – WP:ANI#Goa Inquisition. However, instead of apologising for this misuse of admin tools and intimidating non-admin users he insists that it was a safe move and within admin discretion; hypocritically warns them of a block here – [27] and asks them to assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with nick - I feel like I cant post my replies anymore on that talk page, for fear I will be blocked for "incivility". I myself have found an academic journal to source most of the page (do refer to The Goa Inquisition. Being a Quatercentenary Commemoration Study of the Inquisition in Goa - Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 84, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1964), pp. 483-484) but am afraid if I quote sections of it and comment, I may be insulting people an therefore will be blocked under a variety of false premises. Instead of encouraging informed debate, Tango is stifling it. Bakaman 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Protection_policy#How → Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, this seems to be a bad month for administrative... contention. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I told Nick on my talk page, this has already been discussed here. Try scrolling up a bit and put your comments there. --Tango 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have provided the link to that discussion here. I believe this location would provide a view to a larger audience. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the same page. How can it provide a view to a different audience? --Tango 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point of the discussion really. Users/admins tend to look at the bottom of the page, rather than coming down from the top. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The earlier discussion focused on sockpuppetry.Bakaman 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Though i have not edited Goa Inquisition myself, i am compelled to comment here. User:Tango appears to have prematurely blocked the article without an objective analysis of its recent edit hostory. Goa Iquisition of late has been plagued by POV-pushing-sockpuppets. While check user on User:Xandar may have been inconclusive, his edit patterns do bear striking similarities to CC80 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)'s...

User:Xandar though largely civil, seems to be highly prejudiced and obtuse in his dealings with Indian editors. He for one simply rebishes every argument and reference presented to him as "unrealiable". The situation has become unworkable and i doubt whether discussion on the talk page would be conclusive. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 18:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tango protected an unsourced version of the article. I disagree with his actions. article should be either protected to the correct version, or uprotected. He protected xander's version who seems to be vandalist troll.--D-Boy 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Whatever might be the issue here, m:The wrong version is not. Don't complain about the wrong version getting protected. -Amarkov blahedits 22:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What kind of talk is that? I'll remember that when try to go for admin. Keeping false info protected like that and abusing admin privileges hurts the credibilty of wikipedia.--D-Boy 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's put to rest one recurring complaint: although CC80 was a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal butXandar isn't. The checkuser came up unlikely and my investigation also determined they're probably different. This article has several problems and I've only cleared up one of them. DurovaCharge! 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to the behaviour of Nick. He initially asked me for an explanation on my talk page and when I asked him to be more specific he responded sarcasticly (bordering on uncivil) and reported me here without actually discussing the matter with me first, what was the point in going to my talk page if you weren't going to actually talk to me? He then created a new section which has the only effect of giving his comments more weight that those that have gone before. He has misrepresented my actions in his description - he says I called my version the safest version, which is nonsense, when I used that edit summary it was my first edit to the page, how could it be my version? I was never in a content war, I was simply determining what version should be there while the discussion takes place, I have no opinion on what version is the better one, only which is the safer until consensus is reached. Also, he quotes me as saying I used "admin discretion", I never used that phrase or anything similar, I have no idea what he's refering to. He says that I didn't apologise for my actions when I explained them here - that's because I was the one that brought the matter here. Why would I apologise when I hadn't been told I'd done anything wrong (other than by someone already involved on the page)? I was asking for a 2nd opinion (and the one I got was that I'd done the right thing), if I felt I had anything to apologise for, I simply wouldn't have protected the page in the first place. Nick is trying to make out that I've refused to listen to criticism, which is complete nonsense, I was the one that came here to ask for criticism in the first place! --Tango 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Dont lie. You made three reverts rv1rv2rv3 and then protected to your version. After that you threaten me [28]. I should have reported you on AN/3rr (at least for going against spirit of 3 revert rule). The worst part was the threats, I was afraid of getting blocked by an abuser of admin powers. I demand that Tango (talk · contribs) recuse from harrassing editors on the page, and to find another (preferably impartial) admin to take care of it. You're back on ANI for threatening users after abusing admin powers.Bakaman 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Tango saw that xandar kept repeatedly deleteing sourced material. He not only rved a couple times but he protected it. and imparital admin would be better.--D-Boy 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

I am concerned that this seems to have turned into a kick-a-man-while-he's-down incident against Tango, by what seems to be users with similar interests. I think that until a neutral admin reviews this, neither side should attack the other any further. – Chacor 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing us of POV-pushing? I find it incivil on your part to examine users' motives through your POV on the matter. I happen to be the main contributor to the Goa Inquisition page and have worked for months to fight vandals and find reliable sources (refer to the one I discussed above). If were kicking Tango while he's down (for abusing admin privileges) then I could theoretically assume you are here to back up a fellow sysopstruck out see below. Note that at least two admins have posted here attesting to the findings.Bakaman 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am neutral, and have not looked at the article. NEither am I a sysop. It is very inappropriate to mischaracterise my actions as you have done. – Chacor 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And accusing me of "kicking someone when they are down" is appropriate? especially when they threatened to block me? Quite hypocritical on your part.Bakaman 04:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of kicking someone when they're down. I said I'm concerned a group of users seem to have turned this into such an incident. – Chacor 04:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It only looks as if User:Tango seems to be bent on justifying his protection of the article, after misusing his rollback and revert-warring on it. Bordering on incivility? (Although, I don't think I ever was), I believe that it is better to be uncivil rather than abusing your admin privileges. We are not given muscles to protect/endorse our own versions while asserting neutrality and intimidate non-admin users with blocks. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I read Chacor's comments and did not think they were directed at a specific group of people. However, I did notice a group of people responding as though it was directed at them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What is done, is done (unfortunately)[edit]

This is my assessment of the situation and some comments; feel free to respond below.

  • There was an edit war on the article page Goa Inquisition[29] , User:Tango protected the page – [30].
  • User:Tango used his [rollback] tool in order to revert another user, – [31], [32], and reverted once manually – [33], calling this a safe version.
  • Tango then protected the article to "his own version", so the talk regarding the "The Wrong Version" is not really the point of discussion here, Amarkov. Not material at all.
  • This is where Tango says that he meant to keep the article safe, as the did not believe the source given was reliable enough. – [34], – Nothing but exercising your discretion and protecting your own version.
  • I requested Tango to explain what he meant by this – [35], and his reply was rather convenient – You're going to have to be more specific... that's just a history page.[36], I did not see any point of discussing this with him any further.
  • In a single edit, Tango tackles the content dispute and warns other users of a block in general to assume good faith with him. – [37]. I am monitoring this discussion, and will be handing out 24 hour blocks to anyone violating these guidelines.
  • In his complaint about Nick's behaviour[38], – he states He has misrepresented my actions in his description - he says I called my version the safest version, which is nonsense, when I used that edit summary it was my first edit to the page, how could it be my version? I was never in a content war, I was simply determining what version should be there while the discussion takes place – I am not even sure if Tango understands what really is a content-dispute and how administrators are expected to behave in/respond to a particular situation. I have no opinion on what version is the better one, only which is the safer until consensus is reached. – well there's his point of view. (see the diff)
  • Regarding Chacor's comment here about kick-a-man-while-he's-down – The man has kicked himself once again, by repeatedly showing that he disregards the community's guidelines and policies.
  • I never wanted Tango to apologise to me, or any other person for that matter. Just express his sincere regrets to the incident and give his assurance that it would never happen again. The matter could have been sorted out, there and then.
  • The point in having this conversation was that the community should be aware of the facts as they happened there; as I, personally see no point in unprotecting the page and having the other users revert-war over their own version.

Thanks, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You do mean that m:The wrong version is really the point, right? -Amarkov blahedits 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"His own version" is precisely my point. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 06:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify my thoughts from above: I do agree that Tango should not have used rollback on a content dispute, neither should he have protected the page, but rather gotten someone else to look at it. – Chacor 06:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion a better way User:Tango may have approached this by requesting protection at WP:RFPP or ask other admins to protect the page since he reverted the article OR revert then immediately protect, WP:PPol did say that admins are allowed to "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.". Though I would say the outcome of the page is likely to be exactly the same as it is currently, so I would say this is more of a procedural issue than an abuse of admin power. --WinHunter (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The article in concern has been experiencing an onslaught of edit-wars from 21st August 2006. Tango did not revert to that version at all. He has admitted that he reverted to what he termed a safe version. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 07:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ach, this isn't good at all. It's always better to get a second opinion when tools are needed in a content dispute, and I think Tango got involved wrt content here. RFPP would have been a good neutral option if the page needed protection. And mentions of blocks really just ends up escalating the situation [39] -- Samir धर्म 07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rollback is to be used only to revert vandalism. Pages should never be protected if you're involved in a content dispute.--MONGO 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourselves, you're just wasting everyone's time. I know I reverted three times and then protected, I said exactly that when I initially brought the matter here. You don't need to accuse me of something I've admitted to doing. I've given an explanation of why I did it, and so far no-one has even tried to explain why they think that explanation is flawed. If you have a problem with what I've done, argue against the points I've made, don't repeat things I've said myself... --Tango 13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove? You are not only assuming bad faith but your comments are audacious. You never admitted that you used the rollback tools. Do you have any idea what a content dispute is? Kindly familiarise yourself with the admin how-to guide. In case you did not notice, I have also responded to the comments you made before this. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You have not responded to my comments, you have simply quoted them. Tell me why it was wrong to revert to the safer version. As for using the rollback option - why should I revert manually when I can revert automatically? The only reason I can see is to give an edit summary, but it's fairly obvious that I did the 2nd and 3rd reverts for the same reason as the first. --Tango 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
/me facepalms. I will wait for somebody else to comment here. Keep watching this page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Rollback is only to be used for removing vandalism. If you're mechanically reverting someone thrice over, you might want to take a step back and realize, that while technically not violating 3RR, you are violating the spirit of it. Ideally you want to cool-off revert wars; one good way to do that is to put further rationale in your edit summaries. If you don't provide any new information and use a standard admin rollback edit summary, they're just going to keep pushing back. Please stop using admin rollback except when dealing with the specific situations it is authorized for. --Cyde Weys 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

There's a problem at that page. It desperately needs some serious intervention by uninvolved parties to try to clean up/mediate the dispute. It's also obvious that Tango should never have protected the page after getting involved in a content dispute, and definitely should not have reverted it after protecting it. The important question is "what next"? Tango has reverted to what he called a "safe version". That would be ok if this were a BLP issue, or some other libel issue. However, the version he reverted to lacks sources, while the one he reverted is sourced. A quick look over the talk page suggests that the issues have been discussed and the sources are fairly reliable.

  1. Page protection seems reasonable. Tango shouldn't have been the person to do it, but that's just bureaucracy. He did the right thing even if he broke some rules.
    I think the page should be protected until the issues can be sorted out finally and more outside editors involved.
    I trust that Tango will bear in mind these issues in the future.
  2. Reverting after protection was uncalled for - there were no burning legal issues, as far as I can tell (I may have missed something, there's an awful lot of back and forth here). The other version is better sourced, but per "wrong version" that shouldn't be the issue here.
    Assuming that there are no legal issue, Tango's revert should be undone. The page should spend its "protection" in the version that was actually protected.

What do people think? Guettarda 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see some WP:BLP issues; butThere are none. This is one of User:Tango's reverted edit – [40]. I see removal of sources, whether disputed or not; and then revert-warring once manually and two times using rollback tool. Tango should have ideally protected the first version he came upon or asked some other administrator to exercise his discretion without getting himself involved. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
All right I'll speak frankly: Tango stepped into a very rough situation and did (his?) best. As Sir Nicholas states, I agree it would have been better to have either protected whatever version was current or to have asked other administrators for input. Any page protection during a content dispute is likely to draw accusations of administrative bias or misconduct (no matter how spotless the administrator's conduct and reputation actually are). So by rolling back or reverting for anything other than the most narrow paramaters such as WP:BLP compliance, an administrator runs the risk of inflaming the dispute rather than quelling it. I think I see the point Tango was trying to make in the caution, and I also see how that went over: sysop tools seem much less important to people who have them than to people who don't. Administrators are expected to have the wisdom of Solomon in the messiest situations, so even when I might choose differently I usually respect others' decisions. Yet I've been uneasy about this particular action because it's right at the outer limit of what's acceptable, maybe a few inches beyond it. I wonder what's the fairest way to take a few steps back and defuse the dispute. DurovaCharge! 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
(I'm not an admin, and I'm involved in the discussion on Talk:Goa Inquisition.) I don't think the page should be changed at this point. The edit war is stopped and users are discussing sources on the talk page. The wrong version got protected, but at this point, any version will be wrong--the edit wars have been going on for a long time. I'd recommend letting the discussion run its course, but if another admin could step in and monitor the procedings, that might be helpful. (Or we could go to some form of mediation.) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No one here wants to change the page. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear--protecting a different version (which Guettarda suggested above) would be changing the page. I think the page should be left as it is now until discussion is completed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Yeah. However, let us discuss on the talk page and then go by consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I apply the principle of WP:BOLD to administration, just as I do to editing. I do what I think is best (within my interpretation of policy, and using WP:IAR where necessary), and then if I think what I've done might be controversial, I come here and ask for people's opinions. In this case, I recieved two responses in the first couple of days, one was an admin endorsing my decision, and the other was a non-admin involved in the page who questioned it and then didn't reply to my response. If what I did was so terrible, why didn't anyone say so when I first brought this matter up for review? This page is watched by a large number of admins, I'm sure plenty of them saw my message and they obviously decided it did not require comment, which is an implicit endorsement of my actions. Had an admin suggested I undo the action when I first made it, I would probably have done so (depending on their reasoning), but no-one did. There is now a discussion going on on the talk page, and hopefully those involved will soon reach a consensus, if not the matter can be refered to the dispute resolution procedures. Undoing an action like mine 2 days after it happened would do more harm than good. I strongly support admins reviewing eachother's actions and speaking up if they disagree, but reviewing days old actions is of limited use. Try monitoring this page more closely in future, and perhaps your opinions can be taken into account before a decision becomes difficult to reverse. --Tango 18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tango, it is fine to be bold to stop a revert war. It is not fine to become involved in a revert war, use your admin rollback button in that revert war, and then protect the version you prefer. I can understand the accidental use of the rollback button to revert something that is not obvious vandalism, but twice? And protecting an article where you have just been engaging in an edit war is unacceptable. We hold the admin tools in trust. You have betrayed that trust. I normalloy would not be commenting on this, but you do not seem to understand the seriousness of what you have done. Your actions, and your refusal to acknowledge how wrong they were, cast a cloud over all admins. -- Donald Albury 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe I was involved in any kind of content dispute, and I have explained my reasoning for that. Until someone at least tries to refute my points, why would I acknowledge any wrongdoing? --Tango 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you keep reverting? It was an edit war. You used your admin rollback button. Are you claiming you were reverting vandalism? That's the only excuse for doing what you did. But, protecting an article that you have just reverted three times is the biggest problem. Once you reverted the article the first time, you were obligated to not use your admin tools. If you wanted to stop an edit war, you should have protected the article without making any edits to it. Appearances are, in a sense, just as important as intentions. You have created the appearance that you have used your admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. You may say that it was not a content dispute, but I don't understand then why you were edit warring. -- Donald Albury 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept that every version is wrong and a discussion of sources would do this article much more good. If keeping the current wrong version helps that discussion move forward then so be it. Tango, the reason I didn't speak up sooner was that when I saw this I scratched my head a bit, wondered whether the uneasy feeling was just me, and moved on. I noticed this was ongoing today and realized I wasn't the only person who had some misgivings. Maybe I should have spoken sooner, in which case I apologize. I hope you'll take the candid feedback to heart. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me try and work out exactly what the problem is here. Consider this alternative: Rather than reverting 3 times, as I did, what if I'd protected after the first revert (the manual one, so rollback doesn't come into it)? Is the problem that I chose a version to protect, or is it that I reverted to that version a few times before protecting? --Tango 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The second one, and your threats on the talk page. First you abuse rollback, then you threaten to abuse the block button?Bakaman 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The simple solution I use is to just hit "protect". Nobody from the Goa Inquisition is alive today. After an initial burst of eep, that's wrong the editors usually settle down to discussing their differences. Since I haven't altered anything - and reject any thanks or complaints - the editors usually accept me as a neutral party if I need to give block warnings. DurovaCharge! 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The next time I see him doing this, I will apply his very own principles of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR and drop the banhammer. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating others here, since you still don't seem to grasp it, this is the problem. First, you shouldn't have been edit warring at all. No matter what the problem was, that is not how we solve disputes; we use calm and amicable dispute resolution. There should be no admin who doesn't hold that opinion. You shouldn't have been using rollback on good faith content edits. It's rude and furthers ill-will. You absolutely shouldn't have protected when you were involved in the edit war, and even more so should not have protected to your preferred version. That isn't really negotiable at all. Administrators are expected to protect the version they encounter, not the one they prefer. Finally, after all this, clear involvement in the dispute, you shouldn't be making threats to block other editors on that article's talk page. You seem not to be understanding the distinction between your involvement as an editor and your invovlement as an administrator; don't mix these. To answer the specific question: no, neither of those are good options. Why is "talk," rather than hitting your admin buttons at all, not one of your solutions? Dmcdevit·t 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I won't repeat what Dmcdevit and others have said above. I would only like to say that I do not endorse the use of roll-back. I would have protected the article as it was if there were no concerns about BLP. The use of roll-back combined with protection looks bad and makes it look like Tango wanted to protect his "own version" after revert-warring. I appreciate what Tango tried to do but it is now obvious that one side of the edit-war will never see Tango as a neutral admin. So I advise Tango to allow any other admin to mediate the dispute. I am willing to look into the matter if no other admin is currently mediating the dispute. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was never involved as an editor, as I've repeatedly said and no-one seems to understand - I've never even read the article, I've just looked at the diffs and the talk page. I was reverting to what I felt was the safer version to have showing during discussion - I know there is no BLP concern, but a quick look at the talk page will tell you there are some very strongly held opinions on the subject nevertheless. Even if I was wrong to select a safe version in this situation, that doesn't change the fact that I was acting as an administrator, not an editor and was not involved in any content decisions. And how you can call Bharatveer's reverts "good faith", I don't know. He was using misleading edit summaries and reverting when as administrator had specificly asked him not do. I don't think it quite counts as vandalism, but it wasn't done in good faith. --Tango 15:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Tango, I understand why you don't think you were involved in the editing dispute, and honestly, I don't think you chose a side or have a preferred version of the page--to me it looks like you were trying to get editors to discuss whether a controversial source should be included or not. And personally, given the tone of some of the comments on the talk page, I also think a warning about incivility and personal attacks was warranted.
Still, if a page is undergoing an edit war it's best to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Once you revert an edit, no matter what your intentions, it looks like you've made a decision about what the content of the article should be--in other words it looks like you're no longer neutral. Like Aksi_great said, some of the editors in that dispute will never see you as impartial now, so it would be best if Aksi_great or some other admin could step in. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Now that is something I can agree with - to someone who is thinking very emotionally about the issue (as those on the talk page are), my actions could easilly be mistaken as a conflict of interest. That's one of the reasons I came here - if another admin endorses my action (as they did), it gives me more legitimacy in any subsequent arguments. However, the recent comments here have not been about appearences, they have been stating as fact that I was involved in the content of the article, which is simply incorrect. --Tango 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As a protecting admin, it is not your job to decide which version is safe, which is not. Both are wrong. You protect the first version you come up with and not revert other users edits. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so you disagree with my judgement on an administrative decision - that's fine, and I can certainly understand where you're coming from. I fully intend to follow that guideline in future - trying to protect a safe version clearly causes more problems than it solves. However, that doesn't mean that I was involved in a content dispute - I was acting as an administrator the whole time, incorrectly at times, but I was still handling administration, not content. --Tango 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Bluntly: so? If I and everyone else here accept that you were acting as an administrator, that doesn't change the fact that you were acting poorly as an administrator. You are evading the issue. You should not have been using rollback, should not have protected after reverting the article and to that version, and should not have threatened a block. This isn't something we can agree to disagree about; this is about sound administrative judgment, which, as long as you defend any of those actions, I must conclude that you lack. Dmcdevit·t 09:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
When I reverted with an edit summary saying not to revert again, I considered that a kind of "soft protection". It allows people to continue to edit the article, but makes it perfectly clear that they should not continuing reverting. It seems such a soft approach doesn't work and I should have just protected it from the start. I've already said that reverting to a "safe version" was, with hindsight, a mistake. As for using rollback, if people feel that strongly about it, then fine, but to me it's just a convinience - the automatic edit summary doesn't say it's vandalism, it just says it's reverting edits, I could type that edit summary myself after a manual revert and it would be perfectly acceptable and there would be no way for you to tell the difference. If you can't tell the difference between two things and one is acceptable, then they both are acceptable - that's simple logic. And I will not apologise for threatening to block people for incivility - that's simply enforcement of policy. --Tango 12:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of incivility, is anyone monitoring the discussion at Talk:Goa Inquisition? The situation does require some kind of oversight--the users who were edit warring are calling each others' edits "hate speech". Since everyone seems to agree that Tango is no longer the best person to handle this, could some other admin please step in? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion seems to have dried up there recently... perhaps they are following the principle of "If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". It's only a few edits a day at most at the moment, it's not hard for someone to monitor. --Tango 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I am absolutely flabbergasted that you seem to see no difference between "threatening to block people for incivility" and threatening to block people you just reverted for incivility. That is not simply enforcement of policy; that is out of bounds. Dmcdevit·t 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing about my decision to revert had anything to do with the people making the edits, so there is no issue of bias or conflict of interest or anything else that would mean I shouldn't enforce basic policies. --Tango 21:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Tango, the point is "you just don't seem to get it". You do not revert when you are a neutral party, or simply acting like it. Why are you continuing with your lame arguments? At one point you are saying that the administrators saw that and did not comment means that it was an implicit acceptance of what you did. When they commented, you have been asking them to "stop repeating yourselves". — Nearly Headless Nick 12:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not true, in a WP:BLP case, a neutral party would certainly revert while something was discussed. I've accepted that it was probably unwise to apply a similar principle in this case and said so repeatedly. It was not so much people repeating themselves that bothered me, it was more them repeating me. When you are arguing with someone, you don't parrot their own words back at them, it's completely pointless. --Tango 20:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale spelling changes[edit]

User Snozzer (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is going around and making wholesale spelling changes to articles from "-ize"/"-ization" to "-ise"/"-isation", claiming that this is "the more acceptable spelling for International users", a belief that is also reflected on his/her user page. When reverted, he re-reverts. User has been asked to stop but does not acknowledge the validity of these requests.  --LambiamTalk 10:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped for now -- whether that means he's actually stopped, or gone to bed, I can't say. Left a message at his user talk. Luna Santin 12:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Look down. #Needless reverts. – Chacor 12:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, heh, you noticed that section >_>Chacor 12:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, took me a bit. ;) I haven't looked to see "who started it," but my main concern is that the reverting should proooobably stop before things get ugly. Luna Santin 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOS#National varieties of English is a useful read, on the subject, especially the notes at the bottom discouraging revert wars over it. Luna Santin 12:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Snozzer's edit summary here seems to be deliberately provocative. I left this message for him at Talk:Human, and his response was this. He does need to be watched carefully. -- Donald Albury 14:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: thus far at least eight editors have posted on his talk page with links, information, and requests - even pleas - to stop this disruptive behavior. He has yet to acknowledge that he may be in error; and in fact continues to assert he is correct, calling American English "a regional variation of English" which he seems to concede might be acceptable for specifically American subjects, maintaining that in all other cases he is changing to "International English, not North American English" - with the clear implication that UK spelling is International and Preferred. This is now spread over at least three user talk pages and I don't know how many article talk pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I blocked him 24 hours, since after several warnings/requests, he ripped through Corporation and left an uncivil note [41] on User talk:TheFarix. The fact that he has ignored all of these requests, and at times responded with taunts, is what I found most bothersome - would have gone with a shorter term, but he already has one block, 24h in November for 3RR. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it uncivil. But I don't think it was appropriate for him to make that demand from me. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Kenosis just left an outstanding note on Snozzer's talk page, putting the lie to Snozzer's claim that British-English spellings are "preferred." I would hope that such a friendly, clear, and fact-filled note would be enough to get Snozzer to ease off on the spelling wars. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Brya is back[edit]

I've just blocked User:Clyb for being a sock of indefblocked User:Brya. Just sayin'.Circeus 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked him per Eugene van der Pijll, but the whole wikiproject is on high alert level. Circeus 16:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, Brya is not known to use sock puppets, so I'm willing to give Clyb the benefit of the doubt for a few more edits. I'll keep an eye on him, though, as I did see the similarities between them. Eugène van der Pijll 16:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg Clerk note - Best bet if you think someone is a sock is to report it at WP:RFCU. Neither user has been subject to a CU before. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 18:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Brya's last edits were in october. Isn't that too late for Checkuser? Circeus 18:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Not if they are editing disruptively under a sock. Perhaps you could better explain the situation to me, so that I could more accurately judge? That would be much appreciated. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It is too late for a checkuser. We have to run it within weeks of their last edit. Essjay (Talk) 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with a user User:Giantsguy46[edit]

Giantsguy46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, last night on my Talkpage I asked for help with a user who vandalized several pages. nn editor responded to my helpme and said he could not find the vandalism even though it is very obvious looking at the affected articles. I am on vacation and do not the airtime to edit all the affected articles vandalized by Giantsguy46. He editted Nick Johnson who is on my watchlist. If you look at the revert edit I did, you will his pattern of double editting a page to cover the first level of vandalism. Please review his contributions and reverse his edits. Ronbo76 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you provide diffs, people here could look into it more thoroughly and help. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 18:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Not necessary. Blocked, totally obvious vandal-only account. For future reference, WP:AIV will usually give you a faster response on these. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Welsh Nationalism revert war[edit]

Hello, I have never posted here, so bear with me. On this page, a disagreement towards the subject matter has caused a war with important information being added, then removed. I have done a 3RR as the other party has themselves caused 3RR removing content, but wish further assistance moderating the differences here. Thank you, Drachenfyre 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I just put my two cents in on that article's talk page, with a compromise proposal. Since you're both in violation of 3RR, but at the same time are the only two disputants, I think that blocking you both will hinder us finding some sort of resolution, so I'm inclined to let it go - but am posting here in case any other admins think I'm getting soft around the holidays ... | Mr. Darcy talk 20:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert war on {{Infobox road}}[edit]

A revert war has broken out at {{Infobox road}} over the formatting of the infobox. Ed g2s (talk · contribs) continues to change the design of the infobox, despite requests to leave the template as-is and reverts by numerous editors to return the template to its prior formatting. Ed g2s refuses to discuss this situation with other editors and it appears that he will not settle for anything less than his design, even if it flies in the face of obvious consensus on Template talk:Infobox road to leave the template at status quo. An uninvolved third party view is welcome. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

False blocked messgaes on talk pages[edit]

User:N8a8y8r8a has posted a false banned message on my talk page (see diff). Can they be blocked and this erased as opposed to reverted? Thanks, Regan123 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The user has been blocked. Naconkantari 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone else was doing that the other day, signing Jimbo's name. If it keeps up, drop me a note with the suspects on my talk page and I'll hunt out an IP to block. Essjay (Talk) 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
He also did it to Hillock65 here. TKD reverted and Sam Blanning blocked. Jd2718 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Main Page[edit]

Can't work out what the image is or how it got there. Can anyone help? Carcharoth 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Check templates. Anchoress 15:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Good god, someone fix that! KnightLago 15:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Suggest an indef block for Panpel (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and protection for Wikipedia:POTD row/December 24, 2006 (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:POTD row/December 24, 2006|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Demiurge 15:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Now revert warring, can an admin block and protect urgently? Demiurge 15:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also {{Newpagelinksmain}} is transcluded onto the main page and unprotected. Demiurge 15:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see, that template is not transcluded. It is in html comments, and thus not active. It seems to have been left as a historical record of what was there, for some reason. It is also a deleted template, and was deleted on 30 November 2006. The deletion debate is here. It has also been previously discussed here (plus the reasons for its use). I haven't managed to find the edit yet where it was put into HTML comments. Carcharoth 16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
They've been deleted, but they were most likely just random Last Measure images. Shadow1 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The images were uploaded to Commons (if the en log is empty check the log on the relevant commons page). Shadow1 your assumption as to what the images are is right...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. [42]; [43]; [44]. Thanks. That's three of them. I still can't find Wikipef and Wikicolor. The vandal linked to Wikipef here and to Wikicolor here. Are the last two images typos or red herrings left by the vandal? Carcharoth 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to write a bot that checks for unprotected Main Page templates and generates a status report that goes somewhere. Sound like a good idea? This probably won't be the last time this happens, as it's not the first. Shadow1 (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds good... including a section for the main page FA would be helpful too perhaps. --W.marsh 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll work something out. It'll probably just grab all wikilinks and templates and check for protection. Shadow1 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do the same with Main Page images; I have seen unprotected Main Page images several times. Also, it would probably be a good idea to check for Featured Article and Picture of the Day templates a couple days in advance. -- tariqabjotu 16:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, the following is the transclusion list for the Main Page as of 1 minute ago.

Posting this since people who can only view the source of (s)protected pages cannot see the transclusion list (Someone may want to tickle the devs into changing that.) 16:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What? When I click "view source", I've always been able to see the transclusion list. Carcharoth 16:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't sure... when I was editing with an alternate account that didn't seem to be the case. :/ 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to find and revert this vandalism. --NE2 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if that bug is the best way to fix the problem. Just protecting templates that are on the main page, and those being used on that day's featured article then unprotecting them when they leave the main page, is probably best. Incidentially, a status report on unprotected main page templates could be used by vandals, so it might be best to restrict access to admins somehow. Carcharoth 16:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandal's already onto it... most of the shock images uploaded by him are single use so the file links for each would show only a single article even if 8322 was implemented. 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, that vandalism lasted on the Main Page for about 8 minutes. Then further vandalism lasted 3 minutes and then 1 minute, before protection was put on the page. See the page history here. Carcharoth 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've written a bot that checks the protection status of pages transcluded onto the Main Page. Anyone think I should ask for bot approval? Shadow1 (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I would ask for approval, since it only reads and I suppose writes a single report it should be apporved quickly. Thanks for building it, question, does it go into the templates on the main page and look for templates transcluded in that one and so on up the chain? Or does it only check the first level? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It only checks top-level transclusions, but I imagine it wouldn't be hard to iterate down the chain. Shadow1 (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well, I've got the request for approval up, but I'm thinking it might be a better idea to use Special:Emailuser instead and have admins sign up to receive the report. Anyone have any thoughts on it? Shadow1 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should keep further discussion of this proposal to the bot request page? --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've written and posted something on this general situation here. Please comment there on how you think we can tighten up the checks and balances we need to have in place. Carcharoth 22:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Vandalism Reversion For Robots Only?[edit]

I'm just wondering because robots have beaten me to the punch the past few times. Thanks. Just H 17:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they are just getting good. ---J.S (T/C) 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha, i'll leave it to them. If they start welcoming though, i'm in trouble. :-) Just H 18:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It isn't time to start cowering under our afghans just yet, there's still plenty of creeping vandalism that can be zapped. I notice that Sarah Connor (fictional character) remains intact, so they aren't quite omnipotent just yet. - CHAIRBOY () 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
<groan> Does that terminate this discussion? SAJordan talkcontribs 23:49, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Personal attacks and formal warnings[edit]

It seems odd to me that a person has to receive two formal warnings before one may bring a matter to WP:PAIN This edit by BabyDweezil (talk · contribs) is almost as blatant a personal attack as I have ever seen on Wikipedia. My own view is that he should be blocked for this. I was not the target of the attack, but since I have been somewhat involved in tussles with him in the past, I'll recuse myself from taking an administrative role in the matter.

More generally though: doesn't this requirement of using {{npa2}} and {{npa3}} before bringing a matter to WP:PAIN mean that someone effectively gets two opportunities to make personal attacks, no matter how egregious, before a matter can be brought there? That seems to me to be downright insane. - Jmabel | Talk 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just blocked the user 24 hours for that completely inappropriate comment, on top of a history of uncivil edit summaries and a lot of revert-warring (I thought I saw several 3RR vios by him to Fred Newman, but he's only had one block for it). | Mr. Darcy talk 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose 24 hours is a gesture in the right direction, but it seems to me to be incredibly mild. Also, I'd appreciate some discussion on the more general issue I raised here: doesn't this requirement of using {{npa2}} and {{npa3}} before bringing a matter to WP:PAIN become a license to make teo personal attacks? - Jmabel | Talk 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel and thanks for you long involvement with Fred Newman. I agree with MrDarcy, that BabyDweezil has certainly been uncivil in the past and deserves a 24 hour block. As it happens, WP:BLOCK has recently been modified to allow blocking without any warnings for severe threats. Obviously, under the current system, if an editor is uncivil and makes a personal attack, they could be processed via an RfC and then ArbCom, which is reasonably fair... Addhoc 00:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Friday recall petition[edit]

While running for admin, Friday said he would resign his adminship and request re-adminship if sufficient numbers of users requested it. A petition was put on his Talk page requesting his resignation, as per his own statement. User:Hipocrite, who is deeply involved in all of the RD drama, has deleted the petition. I am not about to get into an edit war over this, but I think that Hipocrite's action is unacceptable, especially as there were several supporters of the petition in good standing, and Friday certainly had the opportunity to remove it from his Talk page if he so wanted. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The petition became worthless when talk page spamming of everyone Friday had ever blocked became the method of "advertising." Trolls do not get to harass our good editors by doing things like finding unrelated parties to latch their "concerns" on to - I mean, one wouldn't want to support editors who disliked a hypothetical editors contributions to 9/11 conspiracy theories getting them desysoped by teaming up with a bunch of retards who like internet drama, right Zoe? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that there is a related discussion above. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Badlydrawnjeff has restored the petition, and I lose £10 for betting that it would be a Rootology sock to do the honours. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
And, for the record, I think the idea behind it is absurd, but simply that it's not Hipocrite's place to decide whether it has standing. I have my disagreements with Friday, but he's no dummy and I'm sure this will be relegated to the trash bin at the proper time. I'd toss you some money to cover the bet, but my American dollars aren't worth that much to you. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"New" user User:Just another editor deleting sourced material from Daniel Brandt[edit]

Supposed new user Just another editor (talk · contribs) has just made a controverisal deletion from the Wikipedia criticism section of Daniel Brandt claiming that the well-sourced material is unsourced and original research. I have restored the material. Immediately, an anon came in and reverted the deletion, I have blocked that anon temporarily. Best to keep an eye on Just another editor. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromised account?[edit]

Undertakerlives (talk · contribs), having been gone for six months, suddenly shows up and starts vandalizing. I have indef. blocked until an explanation is forthcoming. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well he did some vandalism during his first period here [45], [46]. Probably just a returning vandal. --W.marsh 23:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin's unblock request pending review[edit]

Please note the unblock request at User talk:Centrx, whom User:Philwelch blocked for one week based on what seems to have been confusion about keeping vs. deleting some redirects. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

23:30, 23 December 2006 Ral315 (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Centrx (contribs) (No discussion on this; please take to WP:AN.) Khoikhoi 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes; I've unblocked Centrx, with the understanding that there will be no edit-warring or wheel-warring on the issue; I encourage both sides to reach an agreement. It seems to be a simple understanding. Ral315 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I was not involved in any edit warring or wheel warring in the first place. —Centrxtalk • 23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm a bit confused. Was there any prior contact between Philwelch and Centrx, prior to the block? The tone of Phil's block notice seems to suggest it's their first exchange of words. If that's true, why leap straight for a block, and a week-long block, at that? Luna Santin 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I honestly expected to unblock him myself once he had admitted his mistake, which I had made clear in my message. It was more a means of getting his attention—I didn't expect it to really even last the week. Philwelch 00:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLOCK. Blocking someone inappropriately is much more "reckless abuse" and a "significant mistake" than deleting your favorite redirects. Everyone else here, though, is reasonable enough not to block you for a week for it, though your personal attacks are not acceptable. —Centrxtalk • 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't give a fuck about those redirects personally. I think they're a bit borderline myself, but they were referred to RfD and the RfD was closed as a "keep". You can reopen it if you'd like, but apparently it's also perfectly acceptable to ignore that and delete it yourself. Who would have guessed? Philwelch 00:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse unblocking. Please resolve disputes on the appropriate talk pages instead of resorting to blocks without discussion. Naconkantari 23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You know, we have a specialized talk page called Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion where this dispute was resolved before Centrx went along and deleted things withoutH explanation. I guess I shouldn't blame an "experienced administrator" for not knowing that, though. Philwelch 23:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse unblocking. User:Philwelch has issued inappropiate blocks in the past, and has been warned against such actions.

[47] [48] [49]. Dionyseus 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    • I would like to take this opportunity to again point out that Dionyseus has wikistalked me, both here and on AFD, for some months now. Philwelch 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so it's okay to delete multiple pages with no explanation in the deletion summary and in direct contravention to the results of deletion discussions? Cool. I will take advantage of this privilege liberally from now on. Philwelch 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Centrx explained (in his unblock request, not now currently visible as far as I know) that he had not been aware of the results of the RfD discussions. I agree that it is better for admins to include a deletion summary when deleting. What I don't understand is why the question of why these deletions was not addressed to Centrx before blocking for one week. That sort of block without an opportunity to explain, in a non-emergency situation, shouldn't be applied to any good-faith user, much less an experienced administrator. And I am concerned that your comment above plus [50] auger an upcoming WP:POINT violation. Is there someone who knows both these users who could step in here before this spins out of control? Newyorkbrad 23:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I was being sardonic. Here is a definition of "sardonic", at least until somebody deletes it without giving any explanation. Just in case you're too lazy to click the link, I'm not going to actually go around deleting things without explanation, I just suggested that I would for rhetorical purposes. Here's a similarly deletion-prone definition of "rhetorical". And yes, I am still being very sardonic. Philwelch 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Which still brings us to the question: did you ever warn Centrx, or even ask him for an explanation, before blocking him for a week? Luna Santin 00:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
See you replied above. That's what I get for not checking page history.Luna Santin 00:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To give background, these pages[51] were listed on User:Zorglbot/Shortpages and were on visual inspection clearly implausible typos (e.g. "Hole in One (or Two) (The Price is Right Pricing Game)", not even possible as typos), and had no RfD notice on them.

Right now, after scouring through the RfD logs now (as there is no indication in page histories on which day in the preceding 3 weeks the RfD occurred), I found the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 December 4#Price is Right redirects, in which User:Philwelch states at the end "Despite high support for keeping, many of these were improperly speedied as G6's. This is an abuse of CSD and I would like to advise Gh87, as well as the deleting admins, never to do this again." I'm not sure whether his "advice" means he was going to block anyone who had been involved in the previous discussion or deletion, but I received no advice from him and was not involved in the discussion or previous deletions. I come back today merely to find "This is a reckless abuse of your administrative privileges and you have accordingly been blocked for a week. If you promise to be more careful in the future I can unblock you, but you made a pretty significant mistake without explanation or justification"[52]. "Reckless abuse" is an absurd claim, and this is a punitive block; if one simply made a mistake and need only go hat in hand to Philwelch to promise not to do it again, there is nothing that would warrant blocking. Recurrent vandalism is dealt with less ruthlessly than this singular offense against Philwelch. —Centrxtalk • 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should be more ruthless against recurrent vandalism—or maybe we should have higher standards for administrators. If there's an RfD specifically closed by an administrator other than myself as a "keep", you don't delete. If there's an RfD ongoing for redirects that don't fit the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, you don't speedy delete. And if you do delete something, whether or not you're bending the rules or applying the "snowball rule", you should at least put some explanation in the deletion summary. All that I've been doing here is cleaning up after admins too careless or lazy to check the page history for edit summaries clearly labeled with things like "2006-12-15— RFD closed as "keep". Philwelch 00:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The explanation for anything deleted with the auto "Content was..." rather than a specific summary is the relevant speedy deletion criteria. Any cleanup or questions related to it can be directed to the deleting administrator. A "higher standard" for administrators would entail knowledge of blocking policy. Do you still think I am a danger to the encyclopedia, or did you actually never think I was? Did you block me because you thought I was a "sanctimonious ass" or did you block me to protect the encyclopedia in accordance with policy? —Centrxtalk • 00:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a speedy deletion criteria that applied to these? Which one? "Centrx disagrees with the result of this RfD"? And to answer your question—I think you're a reckless admin with a history of misusing the "delete" tool. I think this is a tendency that needs to be corrected. But if your actions were perfectly acceptable, than I apologize for being the one in error and will not make the mistake of abiding by deletion discussions ever again. Philwelch 00:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If you actually thought that I was a "reckless admin", why have you never brought it to my attention before? Prior to your block notice after the fact, you have never made any edit whatsoever to User talk:Centrx. Shouldn't I have been blocked earlier? Your mistake has nothing to do with the deletion discussion, it has to do with your blocking (and subsequent personal attacks). —Centrxtalk • 00:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I only found out about your recklessness when you deleted a bunch of redirects without any explanation. Before you did that I had idea you even existed. Those were good times. Philwelch 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
RfDs, AfDs, and any other past discussion/pseudo-vote is not a "Get Out Of Being Useless Free" card. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful. Well, I should get started on all the "keep"s that I disagree with then... Philwelch 00:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously... A little discussion is usually preferable to blocking someone for a week. That's generally the way things work around here. It's easy enough to "get someone's attention" by leaving them a talk message and triggering that nice big orange banner. Grandmasterka 01:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've come to a bit of three-pronged conclusion: (1) admins should, as has been encouraged for my entire tenure here, check page history and "whatlinkshere" before deleting, as doing so can reveal vandalism, disruption, or prior XfDs, and Centrx probably should have done so in this case; (2) one should not block a fellow administrator without first attempting to resolve the situation through less draconian means, blocks are preventive, and we have talk pages for a reason; (3) with best possible respect, this may be a good time to consider an RfC regarding Philwelch's apparent abuse of the block tool. As both users have certified, there was no contact between the two of them, prior to the block, which indicates to me that no attempt was made to resolve this before blocking -- see WP:POINT. Luna Santin 01:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, he keeps deleting my comments from this noticeboard, see [53] and [54]. —Centrxtalk • 01:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed them because they're unnecessary harassment over two cases that have already been discussed and resolved. *This* case has already been discussed and resolved. I suggested in no uncertain terms that you leave me alone when you harassed me privately, on my talk page. That does not give you license to harass me publicly here. I came here, briefly discussed the reasoning behind my decision, and let it go. I advise you to do the same. Philwelch 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm more concerned that Philwelch blocked Centrx while he was in a wheel war with him as under no circumstances are administrators to block someone they are in a dispute with. This is grounds for a RFAR case if there is indeed a history of questioned administrator actions, so I would suggest that you take that avenue to settle things quickly. Cowman109Talk 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't in a wheel war with him, and as far as I am aware, things are settled. He was unblocked. I'm letting it go. Philwelch 01:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If those previous cases were discussed and resolved you could have and can still direct me and others to those discussions. This case here is clearly not resolved, and I hope your "advice" here is not the same warning you have given others before, i.e. you threatening to block those who disagree with you. —Centrxtalk • 01:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This case clearly is resolved—you have been unblocked and I have chosen not to contest the issue. I even concede that the initial block was in error. What else do you want of me? As for the rest of your message, I am not going to dignify your harassment and personal attacks with any further response. Philwelch 01:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The ArbCom has just set a record for the most cases accepted in one week, and is going to have a horrible backlog when the new arbitrators are appointed soon, so I hesitate to recommend sending any more disputes in that direction if there are any alternatives. I do have thoughts on the blocking history here, but don't know whether sharing them would help solve an issue or just fan the flames. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
We have way too many cases of admin abuse now on the 'pedia. What is going on? Not just the incidence in question, but its beginning to seem like a general trend.Bakaman 02:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin sock alert[edit]

In the course of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorin Cerin (Dec 2006) I have noticed that Alinaro (talk · contribs), L.Marchis (talk · contribs), and Mircia (talk · contribs) all have similar user pages, similar bad use of punctuation, and all appear to edit only on matters related to Sorin Cerin. Pattern on User:Rolineseem is slightly different, but notice same bad punctuation and the odd pattern of starting off with an edit to his own user talk page, then a vote on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28, then recreation of the Sorin Cerin article.

It would astound me if these are not all one person. It would not astound me if they are all D-ul Cerin himself. - Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Could someone chec