Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive49

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

Noticeboard archives

Not a 3RR block[edit]

Per my previous comments I fully expect to be blocked in about ten minutes, so I'm putting this here now. I'd ask that when I am, Tony Sidaway also be blocked. Although he'll only have three pseudo-reverts, he's clearly being as disruptive as I.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea why Aaron is insisting on being blocked. I've certainly not suggested blocking him--everybody knows I don't do 3RR. I've been making some alternative suggestions for bringing a template into line with policy, and Aaron has been doing his best to revert every single attempt. Odd behavior, but certainly not more odd than I'm used to dealing with, sans blocks. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
See User talk:David Gerard#IgnoreAllRules - David Gerard 08:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Revert warring is harmful, and both of you are senior admins who should know better than to revert war over an important policy- or process-related page. I am blocking both of you for three hours because this is conduct unbecoming an admin. Both of you, cool down, and discuss on the talk page where consensus lies regarding this page. Radiant_>|< 11:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Aaron Brenneman isn't an admin. (Though I thought he was too, which is why I feared another Recycling Troll affair.) - David Gerard 11:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Unsure about blocking Tony, did he really revert four times? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I might have reverted once; mostly I did pretty much clean edits every time, and changed the sense of the edit each time in order (in the absence of any talk page response from Aaron) to try to find out what his problem was and try to smooth it down while still finding a version that corresponds to the deletion and undeletion policies. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to Sjakkalle, I have blocked both for revert warring, which by its very definition is disruptive, not for the letter of the 3RR. AdminsEstablished editors should be above edit wars, and remember that three reverts are a limit, not a right. I'm actually surprised to learn that Aaron isn't an admin. Radiant_>|< 11:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I cannot agree with the blocks. I will unblock both of them, although I won't unblock again if someone reblocks (I dislike block wars). At any rate, they should have been given warnings on the talkpages before blocking them for disruption. Besides, they stopped edit warring a long time ago. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • They stopped edit warring about eight hours ago. Okay, I suppose in WikiSpace that counts as a long time. Please note that three hours is a relatively light block, and that both are experienced editors that should already know perfectly well not to edit war. They crossed the line, even if only by an inch or two. Regardless, I am not going to block again, and I hope that they can find a suitable compromise through discussion, or if necessary through the MedCom. Radiant_>|< 12:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What's the point of blocking people for edit warring if they've stopped? Secretlondon 12:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't edit war at all. Check my edits and you'll see that I attempted discussion on the talk page (repeatedly overwritten by Aaron) and that every single one of my edits was a separate, bold attempt at compromise.

Having said that, Radiant's incorrect block had no effect as I was asleep at the time. I caution Radiant against abuse of the blocking feature. Do please check that someone is in fact edit warring before using it. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


Hold on, I just looked at the block log:

  • 11:45, 19 October 2005 Radiant! blocked "User:Tony Sidaway" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Revert war on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header)

Radiant, what on earth do you think you were playing at? Not only had I not edit warred, I hadn't even touched that article in hours. This was really a very silly response to a long-dead situation. Having attempted and failed to achieve any kind of agreement from Aaron, who kept reverting every single compromise I made, always to the same version, I gave up. I don't see it as my business to act as a policeman against confirmed edit warriors like him. --Tony SidawayTalk

  • You are incorrect. Aaron didn't overwrite anything, he moved your comments to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, which is a more suitable place for visibility reasons. Additionally, when you're discussing this with him or indeed anyone, might I suggest that you be more WP:CIVIL and refrain from calling people liars (e.g. "To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth", and "You've twice falsely claimed that I should use the talk page"). Radiant_>|< 12:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I cannot agree that a completely separate page is "a more suitable place for visibility reasons". If I make an edit on a page, I discuss it on the talk page. This is what talk pages are for. I didn't call Aaron a liar, I simply pointed out that he had several time made untruthful statements. He had done so. I can't go around pretending that someone has made a truthful statement when it's obvious that he hasn't. WP:FAITH has its limits. --Tony SidawayTalk

  • But as a matter of fact, the version Aaron reverted to was established after consensual discussion, which you can find here. I would suggest that you read up on it, and that you owe Aaron an apology for wrongly accusing him of making untruthful statements. Radiant_>|< 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The version Aaron reverted to may have had some people who agreed with it; however it seriously misstated Wikipedia deletion policy and undeletion policy. VFU isn't a policy page, but it must reflect policy. I owe nobody an apology for correctly pointing out that the notice is contrary to our policies and will be incorrect unless and until we have a site-wide consensus to override our actual deletion and undeletion policies and replace them by the fictions represented in that document. Do not falsely claim that I owe Aaron an apology again. The facts are laid out in our official policy, which cannot be overturned by a small group of editsor claiming that they have consensus to make a statement misrepresenting that policy. And again I remind you that you wrongly blocked me for edit warring, when I did no such thing. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It's something of a classic defense round here to say that, when an individual disagrees with something that many others agree with, that "many" is too small a quantity regardless of how "many" it represents. It's actually little more than an attempt to railroad that individual's opinions over the "many" others. As for policy page X or Y being in conflict with a proposal, I don't see anything wrong with that since, if the proposal receives support, it will amend the policy and the two will then coincide. -Splashtalk 13:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. If Fred Bloggs and his mates decide that they can delete articles beginning with the letter Z and write a page about it, and they all agree, this doesn't amend policy in any way. To amend policy you have to, you know, propose the change and then get a proper site-wide consensus, not just Fred Bloggs and his mates. I've no idea how many people support the version of the VFU header that is contrary to policy, but it doesn't matter how many there are since it's contrary to policy and thus unenforcable. There's no alternative really, if you want to change policy, do so, but don't create these little ruritanian fiefdoms outside the policy and expect to get away with it. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • As Splash says. Additionally, take a look at page history. At first glance, there is an obvious edit war going on. At second glance, Tony wasn't actually reverting, since all his versions differ from one another, leading to his claim that it wasn't an edit war. However, at third glance, all Tony's versions come down to the same issue, and therefore it was an edit war.
  • The issue is this: if an admin considers a deletion to be "out of process", should that admin unilaterally restore the article, or should he list it on VFU to determine whether in fact it was out of process? Tony's opinion is the former, consensual opinion is the latter. The Undeletion Policy agrees with the latter - "Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" is listed as an argument to request undeletion, not to unilaterally do it.
  • The reason for the debate is that in the past, some admins have taken a very liberal view of deletions being "out of process". Some other admin must have thought the deletion was in process, or he wouldn't have deleted it. And if such controversy exists between two admins, it behooves us to discuss it to find out which of the two opinions has consensus. And that is precisely what VFU is for. Radiant_>|< 13:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Radiant, if you're going to keep saying "Tony is incorrect" in your edit summary, you're going to have to demonstrate that I'm incorrect.

You falsely describe my example as an appeal to ridicule. Abolutely not. It is simply a fact that you need to amend the deletion policy if you want to do something that it doesn't allow. You can't just get a group of people together who agree to ignore it.

You're going round in circles on the edit war, but at least you now agree that I wasn't reverting. So we move forwards inch by inch. To claim that my version all came down to the same issue is to ignore the fact that the only thing they had in common that they all stated somewhere that VFU operates under the deletion policy and the undeletion policy. WHich is obviously true.


You write: if an admin considers a deletion to be "out of process", should that admin unilaterally restore the article, or should he list it on VFU to determine whether in fact it was out of process? Tony's opinion is the former, consensual opinion is the latter. The Undeletion Policy agrees with the latter

  • To make non-admins able to see what their talking about on VFU, I have no problem with such an article being temp deleted until such time the VFU discussion is closed. - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Undeletion policy states that obvious out-of-process deletions can be undone unilaterally. In the past where an admin has attempted to speedy it again I've invariably taken the matter to AfD, where the article is almost invariably kept (you may remember those two Iranian artists, and the jazz drummer). I've also done this when challenged for an WP:IAR undeletion (the latest being the Wolters case which got a very strong endorsement from AfD). These endorsements do make a nonsense of the claim that consensual opinion is against undeletion of good articles that have been wrongly deleted.

You write: "Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" is listed as an argument to request undeletion, not to unilaterally do it. Not sure what you're saying here. I have not claimed that that an article can be unilaterally undeleted under the undeletion policy for that reason. As you're well aware, the only times I've undeleted an article deleted in process have been under WP:IAR. Only out-of-process deletions can be handled unilaterally under the undeletion policy. It seems that it is I who am constantly having to correct you on points of fact. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are arguing about undeletion perhaps you'd be better taking it to the talk page concerned? Secretlondon 15:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I will once more demonstrate where you are incorrect.
  • Your argument to "delete articles beginning with the letter Z" is in fact an appeal to ridicule, defined among others as "stretching the argument's logic to an absurd extreme".
  • You said above to Sjakkalle that you "might have reverted once". Apparently you are unsure whether or not you were reverting. In any case, the difference between a revert war and an edit war is a matter of semantics. You were edit warring. You should know better.
  • You state that all your edits "stated somewhere that VFU operates under the deletion policy and the undeletion policy", but that is incorrect, because this one does not. At any rate, all of Aaron's versions already reference both those policies, so I find it hard to believe that all your edits were merely to indicate that VFU uses those policy (which nobody disputes anyway). Rather, it seems from your edits that you wish to be able to ignore VFU discussion, which your earlier actions also seem to indicate.
  • You state that "Undeletion policy states that obvious out-of-process deletions can be undone unilaterally", however right at the top of that policy it says "Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion * Deletion "out of process"".
  • You state that you "have not claimed that that an article can be undeleted under the undeletion policy for that reason" (the reason being that "WP would be better with the article restored"), when in fact you have claimed exactly that.
  • You just admitted that you have "undeleted an article deleted in process (have been) under WP:IAR", once more showing that you wish to be able to ignore VFU. That is simply improper. People sometimes make mistakes, and claiming that any action is out of process does not make it so; someone else must have considered it in process, or he wouldn't have made the action. If you are correct about an undeletion, then discussing it at VFU will underline that fact, the only difference being a few days' waiting. If you are incorrect, then discussing it at VFU will show that you should not have done it unilaterally. VFU does work.
  • At any rate it is hipocritical to cite WP:IAR in your defense (twice), when you are accusing other people of breach of policy.


  • This is boiling down to discussing semantics, so after this post I will drop the matter. You have been proven to be incorrect several times, and consensus has been shown to disagree with you on the wording of the VFU header. The mature thing to do would be to admit that you were wrong, apologize to Aaron for the conflict, put the issue behind you and continue with the solid contributions that you usually make - for you are a good editor, and we all make mistakes now and then. HAND. Radiant_>|< 15:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony Sidaway states or implies above that the discusion on the former VfU page was not sufficiently "site-wide" to constitute a consensus to change policy. (I would argue that it merely clarified policy without making any essential change, but that is another matter). These discussion were announced at the village pump, on RFC, at AfD, and CfD, and I think here, on more than one occasion. The discussion continued for over a month. If that is not enough "site-wide" visibility, I would like to know what is. Tony said "If Fred Bloggs and his mates decide that they can delete articles beginning with the letter Z and write a page about it, and they all agree, this doesn't amend policy in any way." I hardly think then widly advertised discuission on the creation and scope of Deletion Review and the mechanics and standards it would use, is comperable to "a page created by Fred Bloggs and his mates". I think that there in fact has been quite sufficient consensus to consider this a change to any policy that conflicts with it, and that it would be justified to simply edit the Undeletion Policy page in accordance with the discussion held on VfU talk. DES (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with DES here. I talked to Tony on IRC yesterday and tried to explain all of this. I also have to add that we have been discussing the new scope of VFU for about two months now, and that Splash and I left messages in the talk pages of all editors who had been involved in the discussion, including Tony. Titoxd(?!?) 01:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously there has been no consensus to change the deletion policy and the undeletion policy such that they'd accommodate the agreed wording of the VFU header (in fact, any and all such changes have been strongly resisted when there have been attempts to change it). I think we have to edit the VFU header to conform with those policies, otherwise decisions made through deletion review on the false assumptions in that header will be regularly overtaken by policy. This isn't a new problem; the old VFU page header also misstated policy. Now I've no great problem with the idea of a clique within Wikipedia that makes decisions that are incompatible with the site-wide deletion and undeletion policies, but I do think it would be nice if instead we had a proper deletion review forum that had the support of those policies instead of having its effectiveness limited and continually finding itself at odds with those policies.

And also of course Radiant falsely accuses me of misrepresenting my edits; all of them were efforts to make the header conform with policy. He falsely accuses me of obfuscating between revert war and edit war; I did neither as he well knows. Every single edit I did was a distinct attempt to find common ground between deletion/undeletion policy and the idea of deletion review. Aaron's version may have referred to policies, but it grossly misstated them and was in conflict with them.

Then we have this priceless gem: You state that "Undeletion policy states that obvious out-of-process deletions can be undone unilaterally", however right at the top of that policy it says "Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion * Deletion "out of process"".

I find it impossible to believe that Radiant believes that the above means that *all* out-of-process deletions must be taken to VFU. The undeletion policy explicitly denies this, granting administrators the right to undelete them unilaterally.

I am perfectly capable of going through every single one of Radiant's other points an demonstrating how--with a succession of often quite breathtaking bits of illogic, and marshalling citations to edits that don't say at all what he claims they say, he's managed to mire himself into believing that he's proven me to to be wrong. But actually I don't have to do that; I think I've done enough to demonstrate the sheer breadth of the cracks in the class of reasoning that he brings to this forum. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Translation: I Tony Sidaway think I am God's gift to Wikipedia. I am always right, 100% of the time and will not entertain the possibility that I am wrong. Anyone who attempts to logically point out that I am wrong will be wrong themselves by default. Anyone who pokes holes in my arguments or exposes my reasoning to be false is most likely an idiot. I don't have to defend my beliefs or opinions as I have divine right to rule here on Wikipedia, much like the Kings of England had divine right. I am perfectly capable of claiming the ability to defend myself though in a logical manner, though I will never ever demonstrate this capability. As God's gift to Wikipedia, I don't have to.
Seriously Tony, come off it and quit with the trolling. Radiant is dead right, if you disagree, fucking pony up. Don't just strut about like a peacock. Agriculture 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't expect him to- arrogance has been a hallmark of Tony's style from day 1. The comments made by oppose voters here should make that clear.--Scimitar parley 17:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh I'm well aware, but someone has to have the balls to call him out for being an arrogant troll and let him know we're tired of his crap. IMHO, he needs to be deoped. He shows no responsibility in his admin privelage usage, and extreme arrogance. Agriculture 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the removal of admin powers is generally viewed as punishment, and Tony hasn't done anything worthy of extreme punishment. He's simply lost my (and evidently your) confidence as an administrator, and any ArbCom hearing on that basis would be (rightly) viewed as frivolous.--Scimitar parley 17:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Let's put it this way: I don't fancy your chances against me in an arbcom case. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And I wouldn't bring you there. Nothing you have done is worthy of consideration for the Arbitration Committee; my loss of confidence is reflective of your tendencies toward unilateralism, and your seeming inability to explain your own views without mocking or criticizing other good editors. As I said earlier, any such attempt would be rightly viewed as frivolous.--Scimitar parley 18:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course you don't. You are after all the Great Tony Sidaway, God's gift to Wikipedia. You still haven't answered his questions, and I am beginning to side with them. TheChief (PowWow) 18:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Edit: Ok that was unfair and I will apologize. I'm having a bad day. Tony, these people are making an excellent point in my opinion. Why don't you just answer the query. TheChief (PowWow) 18:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep it civil, people. We're not here to bite anyone's head off. Titoxd(?!?) 18:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of frustration around. However this doesn't justify the things that have been said. I give a full, indeed exhaustive, response to Radiant's rather poorly researched attempt to make some points on his talk page. The personal attacks that seek to represent my behavior as dictatorial in any manner are simply false; I cannot impose my views on anyone. However since the deletion review is as a matter of fact somewhat adrift from Wikipedia policy, I'm entitled to say so and to take reasonable steps to remedy that. Having done that, I left it there a day or two ago and all I've been doing since then is dealing with misplaced, ineptly composed personal attacks by people who don't seem to be able to understand that people can have legitimate disagreements on interpretation of policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Radiant removed the entirety of that as a personal attack. I apologise if it was taken as such, but while it was frank about the poor logic and failure to ensure that citations matched the claims made, it was intended rather as a defence against what Radiant's baseless personal attacks on me. I have copied it to my own user talk page. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility, personal attacks, and poor response to criticism. Radiant_>|< 12:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    With User:Agriculture on your side, it's a slam-dunk - David Gerard 14:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    Am I the only one that finds it disconcerting to see a member of the ArbCom expressing judgments about petty interpersonal disputes out of the process, let alone see them do it in a sarcastic tone, using argument by association? Zocky 01:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'm shocked that you would consider invoking Agriculture's name to be sarcastic use of argument by association. I don't see how anyone could default to any less than the greatest of good faith in Agriculture - David Gerard 10:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm, the central issue at which I was hinting seems to have gone undetected, so let me spell it out: An arbitrator's habit to comment on inter-personal disputes outside of the context of ArbCom (a) increases the likelyhood that the said arbitrator will have to recuse themself in future cases, thus creating potential problems for ArbCom's workflow, (b) damages the perception that arbitrators are fair and don't take sides, which is crucial for maintaining the trust in the conflict resolution process and thus general good will on the site. Zocky 12:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

IAR[edit]

This might be relevant -- I've put together a (perhaps too long) discussion of why WP:IAR shouldn't be used in defense of out-of-bounds administrative actions. It's here on the talk page. --FOo 10:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It won't fly. The full formulation of the rule is: ignore all rules, including this one. We need administrative IAR to justify all those speedies that don't quite fit the criteria. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
No we don't. When speedies don't fit the criteria, they aren't valid speedies. They should be taken to AfD. If there are too many, we may need to change or add to the speedy criteria. If things that don't fit the criteria are speedied, tehy should be taken to Deletion Review and undelted, and i am going to start doing this more often when i see invalid speedies. DES (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it would work better to contact the speedying admin first? "I notice that you deleted X, but I don't see what speedy criterion applies. If you think it should go, could you indicate a specific speedy criterion, or undelete it an list it on AfD? Sorry to be picky, but I think Wikipedia would be better off with this article, and the matter needs to be looked at more closely." Incidentally, if you find that you can't honestly and with a straight face say the last sentence–particularly the bit about Wikipedia being better off with the article in question–then is there any reason to ask for the speedy to be reversed? (Don't ask for things you don't actually want done!) If you find that you want/have to undelete the article yourself, please have the courtesy to (politely) notify the admin who deleted it in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have done that on several occasions, the response is usually no response. And let me be clear, i am quite willing to suggest undeletion for things that I would absouletly suggest to delete on AfD. I really think that the integrity of the process is more important than any single article, becaus the community trust that lets wikipedia work is based on that integrity of process. Out-of-process deletions are violations of consensus, and as such, bad in themselves, no matter what the content of the article. DES (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Consensus-building is an important process, but it doesn't always have to happen through individual AfDs. If a certain (perhaps ill-defined) class of articles is regularly deleted through AfD–take articles that advertise non-notable companies, for instance–we find that those articles tend to get speedied more often as time goes by. Sometimes the speedy deletion criteria are updated to reflect this; from what I've seen, usually not. Modifying CSD is time consuming, and it's hard to craft new criteria that are both broad enough to be useful and narrow enough not to cause significant collateral damage.
Are the admins who speedy these articles acting outside of Wikipedia consensus, then? It can be argued that they are acting within the wishes of the community. If they are correctly identifying these articles as belonging to a class that is regularly and uniformly deleted by the consensus at AfD, then the deletion itself strikes me as a reduction in red tape rather than a defiance of consensus. Same result, but a lot less time and bandwidth.
The danger, of course, is that an admin will not make correct judgements about which articles qualify for this sort of speedy. Since VfU and DR are usually pretty quiet places, I would suggest that this is at least circumstantial evidence that most of these outside-of-policy deletions are nevertheless reasonable and tacitly accepted by most of the community.
The flip side of an admin's ability to make such discretionary deletions must be an equal helping of accountability. Any deletions justified by WP:NOT or plain common sense rather than WP:CSD should be reversed when questioned and nominated for normal deletion. Admins who find their deletions questioned frequently should engage in a bit of introspection—and lighten their touch on the delete button. (On the third hand, I'm going to boldly say that deletions shouldn't be questioned solely because they don't meet the CSD. That's just wasting everybody's time.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. IAR is about ignoring red tape and interpreting the spirit of policy (ie: that we're here to build an encyclopedia). If someone is seen to be acting in a manner that doesn't serve the encyclopedia, he tends to fail. If he acts in a manner that does, he tends to succeed. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


I would note as an aside that Wikipedia policy often comes about because of admins who ignore rules. Their common sense actions are tacitly accepted by the community, and eventually someone gets around to writing a formal policy to describe the new state of affairs. Wikipedia policy is inherently flexible and negotiable. The spirit of the rules is far more important than their letter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I give what I consider to be an eminently acceptable example of an RC patroller ignoring all rules in speedying an ad for a website design firm, here:
Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules
--Tony SidawayTalk 17:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon insists on a particular version of Disco; need an outside opinion[edit]

The anon User:148.85.1.102 keeps making the same unsourced and strongly POV change to Disco over and over: [1],[2],[3],[4], etc. Notes on the article and user talk pages haven't worked; the only thing to get a reaction so far is an HTML comment I added insisting on a source and an NPOV rewrite, and the HTML comment got changed to a (later-removed) personal attack: [5].

It seems to me that there are clear WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:CITE issues going on here, but I'm also right in the thick of things. Can another admin please check in here? Thanks. - jredmond 18:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I woulkd up blocking both parties for 3RR violations. It might be argued that User:148.85.1.102's persistant revsersions were vandalism, in which case my block on User:Jredmond was a mistake, but this looked to me like a PoV/Edit dispute, albiet one where one party (the anon) was seriously uncivil. If anyone thinks I was in error to block User:Jredmond, please undo the block. DES (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The anon was inserting his own POV into the article and was failing to provide a source despite being asked. jredmond was right to remove unsouced material. He was merely enforcing WP:NPOV Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That says it's ok for someone to revert unsourced material without limit, just because they disagree with it. -Splashtalk 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes. That's pretty much exactly what I am saying. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
That seems like a license to edit war, no? Next time a warrior doesn't like some material, they'll say they don't think those are sources and just keep on removing the material. Isn't it much much better to let other editors carry the torch once you've done the job 3 times? -Splashtalk 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This wasn't a case of one editor not liking a source that another provided. it was a case of one editor adding his own personal opinion to an article and repeatedly reinserting it despite numerous attempts by jredmond to get him to read our NPOV policy and our cite sources policy. Of course it's better to get the community to carry the torch though.(as I've already said on jredmond's talk page) But when an anon repeatedly ignores our policies, inserts his own POV into articles, ignores all attempt at discussion, refuses to cite any sources,and starts atting abusive comments to articles then that's not edit warring, that's vandalism. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, ok, in this case I agree. It was such blatant POVery and attackery that the reverts were ok. I was just a bit concerned about the generality of the principle. -Splashtalk 00:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of generalities. Life is too complicated. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Threat[edit]

User:Karmafist (an admin?) threatening to "punish" another user over a mildly-disputed edit to Coleshill, Warwickshire; also falsely claiming consensus for his version of that edit. 08:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems like Karmafist tried to reason with you on your actions. Could the wording have been nicer, possibly, but from the context, it seems there has been discussion over this before, and they are giving you the benefit of the doubt, but with a stiff warning. «»Who?¿?meta 08:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is the kind of conduct we want out of administrators. There's no part of a Wikipedia administrator's duties which permits him or her to "punish" anyone. Neither the Administrators policy, nor the Blocking policy, make any reference to "punishment"; and I'm not aware of any consensus discussions that suggest that anyone thinks it's acceptable to "punish" here. (Hell, even the Arbitration Committee reminds us all once in a while that its role is not judicial or disciplinary.)

Blocking is part of administrator duties for a narrow range of purposes related to preventing disruption or enforcing policy. Blocking a user because one thinks that user should be "punished" is not a judgment administrators are charged with making. Therefore, the threat is empty at best and abusive at worst.

I don't see this as just a matter of "wording", as Who suggests above. It sounds to me like a lack of attention to what the role of administrators is supposed to be here. It's no part of that role to sit in moral judgment over other editors or to decide that they require discipline or punishment. I suggest that Karmafist be warned not to threaten his/her fellow editors with "punishment" which s/he does not have the authority to impose. I recommend review of the relevant policies (linked above). --FOo 10:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant mainly that the user could have been blocked for violating 3RR and Karmafist did not do that, "punishment" as they put is was poor wording, but it was an option. This is why I say it was poor wording, as well as the "homework" remarks. I still think that the benefit of the doubt was given, and gave the user a fair warning to decease their activities or they would be blocked. This is not much different from the test templates, except for the poor choice of wording. «»Who?¿?meta 10:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The user concerned (me) didn't breach 3RR (another user did, and - oddly - no action has been taken); the "punishement" was threateend in case the admins prefered wording was changed; not for a (further) 3RR reversion. Andy Mabbett 10:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What I'm finding amusing in Wikipedia middle management is the way that some admins enforce the rules on editors with scrupulous attention to detail, but feel quite free to take a far more liberal approach when it comes to themselves. Funny, but one would expect admins to be role models rather than exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.25.122 (talkcontribs) 11:51, 20 October 2005


the wording in question was:

I'm reverting your edit now since apparently you decided to ignore verification before changing most of the edit we reached by consensus above. I should block you for this, but i'll be nice and let you revert again without punishment

imho this shows a deplorable misunderstanding of the role of an admin. Or, since the context is the 3RR, a misunderstanding of the 3RR, since the "punishment" would have been for 3, not 4 reverts. It is my general impression that more and more admins begin to think of themselves less like janitors and more like sheriffs or vassals. With a population of nigh 600 admins, it also becomes difficult to recognize problematic patterns early (also since most complains on this page are bogus, so it won't do to inspect the 'most complained about' admins, these tend to be the most valiant troll-fighters). There are several approaches to address this.

  • make very sure that new admin candidates have a good understanding of, and respect for policy and their role. yes, admins' behaviour should be better than average, they do have some responsibility as 'role models', showing what is considered wiki-like behaviour. new admins should understand that this is part of what is required of them.
  • make it binding policy that no admin should use his powers in content disputes where s/he is involved
  • maybe instigate an official de-adminning procedure at last. I am not saying that karmafist has done anything to make him a candidate for de-adminning, mind you, but the mere presence of a procedure that makes losing adminship as little a "deal" as gaining it may do wonders for some admins' manners. I know such a thing has been turned down before as a trollish proposal. But even back then I maintained that with the ever growing admin population, it may at some point become necessary.

dab () 11:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My block was not related to 3RR(he had done this twice earlier in the week, although it was seen as ambiguous since User:G-Man also was seen as an equal contributor to the edit warring. My block was to his violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT, and Key Policy #4 of WP:RULES. While I respect most of the comments above, i'm frightened to see that some other users who quote policy don't seem to understand this, despite the fact that all of those pages say "This is official Wikipedia Policy" at the top of their pages.

To the comment regarding that no admin should act upon pages that they are involved in, the only reason I was involved in Coleshill, Warwickshire was to help try and stabilize the situation there, which had been in the midst of an edit war. Since i've stepped in, except for 2 reverts by Pigs [6], [7], including a revert of (Leonig Mig)'s edit[[8]], a user that he has publically badmouthed on his user page, also in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT, albeit, more to the point where it's disputed to say so due to user space philosophies.

I commented to this board as well as Pig's RfC because my goal is not to ban him, but to make him realize that he has to collaborate with other people here on edits when things get hot. After seeing an e-mail threat from him(copied at his RfC), I posted the comment below since the ban would probably just lead to more bans instead of the goal above. That's not my goal, but if Pigs continues to act disruptively, I have no problems with banning him again for longer periods of time. I apologize if my actions were construed as a threat, which as stated above, was not my intention. Karmafist 14:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in this particular quarrel, but it's a bad thing for us all that there are people roving round like Robocop with an attitude problem, and especially when they are supposed to be in a position of responsibility. Administrators do not own wikipedia and have absolutely no right to talk about "punishing" anyone, or to address editors in such a condescending and insulting way (arrogance, petty sniping etc). Even malicious and persistent vandals, as opposed to bona fide contributors with strongly-held beliefs, should be dealt with civilly. This is not the first time I've seen unbridled and even puerile aggression from people (little more than children in some cases) proudly flaunting their "admin" status, and it's just not acceptable. Such people should take some time out to read the documents on civility they like to set as "homework". Flapdragon 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
There was no "e-mail threat"; to claim otherwise is a lie. Karmafist is now claiming that "there's nothing to apologize about for the millionth time, and hopefully you'll eventually realize this since everyone has agreed on that point"; that I'm "wasting [my] time complaining to everyone" and is threatening to block me indefinitely. Andy Mabbett 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read through all the evidence on the RfC in question, I'm afraid, but I've seen enough to draw a few conclusions. First, there's no mention that I could see of a threat by e-mail (as claimed by Karmafist above: "After seeing an e-mail threat from him(copied at his RfC)"). Secondly, Karmafist makes no secret of using and threatening to use his blocking powers on Andy Mabbett at, for example Coleshill, Warwickshire, when he has been involved in editing at that article; he should either act as an admin and not edit, or act as an editor and not block. Blocking because he thinks that an editor has behaved badly is also not an option; I doubt that many admins haven't been tempted to do this at some time, but we should refrain — it's not what we're here for.

I came across this issue when I saw the following message at User talk:Purplefeltangel:

You and me have to talk, I don't understand what's going on with your views at Afd. You were a strong deletionist a few days ago, now you're a strong inclusionist, and all your votes are on things that are likely to be deleted (I closed Jagism early under WP:CSDsection G4.). It looks like you might be in violation of WP:POINT unless you explain this better. A few other admins have told me that a block might be on the way, but I told them to hold off until I get a chance to talk to you about this. Karmafist 04:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

When I pointed out that this looked like bullying, and asked who these admins were, Karmafist replied (civilly):

It was just a few admins on IRC asking what was going on. I told them to wait since Purplefeltangel is a good kid and she hasn't done any of this in bad will. Plus, i'd miss all her good cheer if she left Wikipedia ;-) Karmafist 16:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Civil, as I say, but it seems not to fit with the message in question. I'd still like to know who these admins are who were talking on IRC about blocking Purplefeltangel, and I think that Karmafist needs to be a little less free with his own threats, obliques threats, and actual use of blocking. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats actually partly on my urging, several people had commented this was strange since her votes were the sole keeps on very clearly deletion material (2 vanity religions! and some other 2 liner crap articles). As she had expressed a strong deletionist attitude previously to yesterday, and had changed from "extreme deletionist" to "extreme inclusionist" on her userpage ... I was questioning as to whether she was 1) hacked or 2) WP:POINT due to her negative RFA reception. I made a comment on IRC and Karma said he would talk to her before anyone blocked her.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 19:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Alkivar. Ultimately, I used the term "some admins on IRC" to protect any hard feelings she might have towards other editors, all of which were basically just concerned over her viewpoints as of lately, particularly after the RFA. In a way, she's full of cheer and good will but often trampled upon by more experienced editors who forget that everyone makes mistakes. It'd be a terrible loss if she stopped editing at Wikipedia, she just needs time to grow

User:Scottfisher[edit]

Persistent copyright violations and other "misdemeanours" by User:Scottfisher, who deletes most references to them from his talk page, unanswered. Andy Mabbett 11:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page; if the copyvios continue, please let us know here. android79 12:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, this is troublesome. Unless the user cleans up their act and marks all their copyvio images (marked as pd-self) for speedy deletion I think the best course of action is IfDing all the user's images: we have no way of knowing which are and aren't copyright violations. --fvw* 14:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
There needs to be a software-level "this user can't upload media" flag for this kind of situation. android79 14:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo has said in the past that users who persistently and intentionally violate copyright are to be banned. Dragons flight 14:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yup, there's no reason to allow users like that to continue to contribute text either. Let's give him one last chance to mend his ways though, but if they're not gone by this time tomorrow I'd fully support a block. --fvw* 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a link to a clear statement from Jimbo on that? Perhaps a clear-cut final warning on his talk page will set him straight. All I got in response to my warning was "Ok." android79 14:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"Lying about the provenance of a photo is seriously bad plagiarism for which one can and should be banned" [9]. Dragons flight 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, DF. He's been duly warned. android79 15:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Note this recent edit and the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett 14:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I reverted that edit. However that did come before the most recent talk page warning. His last edit at the moment was to acknowledge the warning. He also seems to have added a few images by linking to their original source and listing them in External Links, but I don't know that that is actually a problem. However, if he misbehaves again, a block is in order. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked and images listed on WP:PUI. --fvw* 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked him, to give him a chance to correct the problems. However, will be perfectly happy to re-instate the block if he engages in copyright violation or does not work to address the issues. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, I think you will all be pleased to know progress is being made, but I don't have a problem with leaving Wikipedia, Not a problem, I am free to go as I please anytime, I came here willingly, take it or leave it. Anyway, for clarification, Duncott is a town near Minersville, that is a fact, I was born and raised in the vicinity so I'm not sure what you are all talking about, It is classified as a patch town, something you might not understand, but it is a real town. Secondly, I cannot delete the pics on the list and FVW knows this, as I am not authorized as an admin and now is the time to do this. Also as for tags of the pics, I look toward your help as I believe they were tagged Ok, If not that can be changed to whatever tags you approve The only problem I have is one person says use GDL and another person says use something else. I'll go with whatever it takes and FVW has been asked several times what to use and I will do what it takes get them on, Although I'm not sure I can just change a tag, Catch 22, if you know what I mean. Let me state for the record and thirdly, Please don't associate me with anyone like POTW Mabbett [personal attack removed], so please understand how I don't want to associate with him, I can't understand why his user page does not talk about him, instead of someone else for all this time, and some admin like yourself does not do anything as he has an RFC against him. Questions? I have a discussion page and I won't talk about POTW, or give him the time of day on my discussion page, I've tried that before and it just does not seem to work, beleive me, I will continue to delete his comments on my discussion page as I was told this is OK, but not proper, well neither is giving this user the attention he wants, and that seems to work better for me. I am really not interested in being harrassed and neither would you, I might add I have not been the only one who has seen this in his past. Have you even investigated his past? That is your job, and it's easy to turn your head than face a real problem, that ony prolongs a problem. I'm more focused on creating a good encyclopedia here, and yes you all should be too, and be proud. There really are real people out here, not with made up handles, and fictious Yahoo message board type names, that they hide behind. There really are people that are open, and that openess is usually held against them by people who hide behind these handles. I ask you, as I am trying to be, try and be honest with yourself, and be fair behind your fun handle without a real name. My apology for the text, but I wasn't aware I was being talked about, As I said I can leave any time, Wikipedia will still go on, with or without you, and I, It's a good concept though and hard work, Keep up the good work! Sincerely Scott 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC). NITE NITE

User has made personal attacks, then deleted a request to cease making paersonal attacks, from his talk page. Andy Mabbett 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Scottfisher has potential-copyvio tagged images on his talk page, which he himself has said should be deleted. I've removed them once, but another user reverted. Andy Mabbett 22:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:W**** ** ****s[edit]

W**** ** ****s (talk · contribs) Either Willy himself or a troll. Either way, a block is called for. Demiurge 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours just to be safe.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I would have thought something a lot more severe was called for. Would you like to rethink? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm blocking it indefinitely. A 24 hour block doesn't help against a sleeper account. And Willy ought to know that there are six, and not five letters in "wheels". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I'm new to the blocking thing, and was hesitant to go too far. But, yes, the name is inappropriate in itself.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It's odd that they only sent the message to recently blocked users. It's a pattern we may want to look for. I understand that this could be nothing, and there are several permutations of it, but it's just an idea. «»Who?¿?meta 13:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Cyberjunkie, that's the right thing to do. If you have trouble deciding between blocking and not blocking, don't block. If you have trouble deciding between a short and a long block, go with the short one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy[edit]

I noticed this article - Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy had been created by a User:Andyphamilton if you look at the history. Is this a hoax article, or a bogus one created to gain attention?

This article needs a good checking over. Can someone post about it on this talk page please?? --Whiteheat8 13:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax to me. The "Roger Weierstrass" mentioned in the article does not appear to exist. The article is so vague that any verification will likely be impossible. I suspect it may be a pun on the word "briefs." android79 14:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Month long revert war: Yorkshire Terrier[edit]

Over the past several weeks, an anonymous user keeps changing the main picture on Yorkshire Terrier to a rather bad picture of a yorkie (gabby). These reverts happen a couple of times every few days, I think we are up to 20 reverts now. We've attempted to have a discussion on the Talk page to no avail. Compromise was attempted by featuring the picture in the article elsewhere. Virtually all the members of the dog project have reverted this user more than once, and the anon won't quit. The main IP address that is revert-warring here is 68.99.130.81. There are other anon IP addresses reverting back to the gabby photo as well, see the Talk page for full details, but I think that these are the same user from multiple machines. The original picture uploader and dog owner is User:Arizonaland, both the arizonaland account and the main anon IP address reverter seem to be editing the same two articles therefore I suspect that the 68.99.130.81 user is just the not-logged-in dog owner doing this for vanity's sake. - Trysha (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Slur removed per page policy[edit]

Please remove personal attacks and other egregiously or maliciously irrelevant postings on this page, compare page policy at the top. Please remove pure insult threads speedily, same way as you'd delete a pure "insult page". Bishonen | talk 00:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Bad edits[edit]

Can someone take a look at this and this and this, please? This admin has a history of making bad edits for personal reasons, regardless of whether the user is blocked or not. See here.

The user who made them is called Skyring and has been banned by the Arbcom. Under the Arbcomm ruling every one of his edits once made using a sockpuppet during his ban is to be reverted on sight irrespective of quality. The user has been bombarding Wikipedia with upwards of 30 sockpuppets in the last few days. He admitted that he was secretly editing using other identities. He made the mistake of using one of his secret identities tonight to launch a sockpuppet personal attack and was rumbled. As per the arbcom ruling, all his edits made at that IP since his ban were rolled back. Under Wikipedia rules, banned users are not allowed to contribute anything to Wikipedia, whether context, layout changes or even spelling corrections. All articles created for them while circumventing their ban are also supposed to be deleted on sight.

Even Chris Baty, which he created from scratch? You're going to have to point to the EXACT reference justifying deletion of whole articles, not just asserting that it's so because you say so. --Calton | Talk 00:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, yes. From Wikipedia:Ban#Enforcement:
Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.
As a general guideline, consider if you found the text in question on some open content website elsewhere - is it sufficiently high quality that you would copy it to Wikipedia. If not, you probably shouldn't reinstate it. Also, you should be aware of possible problems with the text. For example, if a banned user is known to be biased on some subject, you should be especially careful to check such text for bias.
If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Wikipedia community.
Deletion: It is not possible to revert newly created articles, as there is nothing to revert to. However, such pages are a candidate for speedy deletion. Non-sysops can list such pages on speedy deletions instead, adding a {{delete}} header.
If someone else has edited the page, particularly if they have made substantive edits, deletion is not appropriate. If you feel it is necessary, try instead to edit the page to remove or rework content contributed by the banned user, and keep content contributed by others. If you feel a newly created article may have been deleted in error, list it on votes for undeletion. For example, you might list a page if you think it's a case of mistaken identity, or because you feel it is of sufficiently high quality (see note for reverts, above).
Titoxd(?!?) 00:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Reverts:All edits by a banned user...may be reverted by any user...We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users...If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Wikipedia community.
Deletion: If someone else has edited the page, particularly if they have made substantive edits, deletion is not appropriate. If you feel it is necessary, try instead to edit the page to remove or rework content contributed by the banned user, and keep content contributed by others.
There's a difference between "must" and "may be" that's been (presumably) inadvertantly glossed over, and Jtdirl certainly in the past has completely missed the there is no benefit in reverting that edit again part.
Skyring's jerky behavior is being enabled, as the pop psychologists like to say. That, more than any edits that remain, is what's giving him his jollies. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring has also been banned from the Wikilist for abusive behaviour. Due to his continued breaches of his ban, users have restarted his one year ban as and from his last edit. Given his edit here, that means that his one year ban restarts as and from now. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 23:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice Jtdirl blocked the IP who added the above indefinitely as Skyring. While I won't question the blocking itself, I've shortened to 24 hours as it's obviously a dynamic IP - the above is its only contribution. ~~ N (t/c) 00:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, having observed that Jtdirl has blocked two other IPs (with all different octets) as Skyring, I assume this is actually an open proxy. Returning to infinite. *hangs head* *apologizes* ~~ N (t/c) 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Or is it? Another one with same two upper octets was just banned (that makes 203.51.24.187, 203.51.35.14, and 143.238.245.206). I'll leave them all infinite but would appreciate a more experienced person's advice. ~~ N (t/c) 00:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The 203. IP from optus is open, so there is no point blocking indefinately. The 143. and 144. IPs from bigpond are also randomly assigned- once again they probably should not be blocked indefinately.--nixie 01:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I suppose then we'd better rephrase the sockpuppetproven template, or create a specific one for open IPs. The template currently speaks about an indefinite block, and I was told by an experienced admin to follow what it said. What then is the optimum time preferable for such IPs? FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I make them just long enough to slow him down, usually 24 hours- which means he has to re-dial or change between IPs to continue. The open one is quite a problem - a shortish range block would probably be effective.--nixie 01:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I've range-blocked the 203. one for a few hours. I notice he's now back to bigpond. JYolkowski // talk 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Never left it! Fascinating to see what otherwise sane people will do just to stop me providing links to some bad edits. Wouldn't it be easier to just fix jtdirl's bad edits?
I dunno, it might be easier to fix your bad edits -- "modification" is not spelled "modifiation" [10] and a measurement modifying a noun ("325-acre tract") takes a hyphen [11]. If you're going to use the figleaf of "fixing bad edits", you best not be making them yourself, mate. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
We're all human, and I make as many typoos and mistakes as the next person. Me, I welcome correction on mistakes. In fact I wish there were far more people like thee and me, brother. If I'm bored, I need only hit "Random article" a few times, and I'm sure to find about 50% of articles have something that needs at least a tiny tweak. Just looking at those diffs, the word you picked out was mis-spelt, sure, but not by me. I corrected the word next to it, but I shall now proceed to pluck out my eyes for missing "modifiation".
My point, as I'm sure everyone has grasped by now, is that reverting good edits is not something that helps Wikipedia. It certainly doesn't incline me to leaving the project, as I would have thought was equally obvious by now.
And speaking of this, I notice the following "bad reversions":
*...and many more. See his recent contributions for a longer list. A mountain of bad edits, all detracting from Wikiquality. And the cream of the joke is that he complained about me vandalising pages!
Can somebody not involved suggest a workable solution to all this? I think jtdirl's time would be better spent making good edits instead of bad ones, and I'm not about to stop correcting his errors and highlighting his appalling behaviour as an admin.
A workable solution would be if you would stop attacking jtdirl, and in fact stop mentioning him at all, even obliquely. Then perhaps in turn he would agree to stop reverting any good edits you make. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not "attacking" him so much as highlighting his misdeeds, and I'm doing that because I'm unable to go through the normal RfAr or RfC channels. I think his behaviour as an admin is appalling and there should be some official notice taken. But when people like you back him up, well, what possible faith can I have in wikijustice?
I'm not "attacking" him so much as highlighting his misdeeds. Hey, you should remember that we're all human, and he makes as many typoos [sic] and mistakes as the next person. Wait, why does that sound familiar? Oh, right, the transparently obvious double standard. Geez, you're not even trying for the figleaf any more, are you? --Calton | Talk 12:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
If it's transparently obvious, perhaps you'd best explain it to me. Since when is correcting someone else's spelling an attack?
Ah, the classic troll disingenuousness, plus moving the goalposts. Perhaps you'd explain your use of "misdeeds", and why said noun doesn't by extension apply to you? If this is still unclear, I can get some butcher paper and crayons from my local craft store to draw you a suitable picture. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
LOL! I'm not saying I'm innocent. Going by wikirules, I'm the devil himself, especially going by the vile abuse I've been copping recently. But you still haven't explained how correcting someone else's spelling is an "attack". If that's an attack, then there must be some very precious petals around!
And no, I'm not going to wait out a year. Twice now jtdirl has extended my block for things I didn't do, so where's the incentive for me to be a good little Wikipedian? --Pete
Hmm, have you edited since those allegedly unfair bans? Why yes you have! So the ban gets reset, hmmm, because of what you admit you did. Simple as that. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
And I have no problems with that. But you've missed the point. jtdirl has twice reset the period for things I didn't do. I could wait out a year from today, and I'll bet that somewhere along the road, jtdirl will again manufacture some sockpuppet, claim it's me, and reset the clock. So where's the incentive for me to behave?
But you've missed the point. I've missed nothing. I certainly didn't miss I edit Wikipedia productively under several different registered accounts, and there must be hundreds of anon edits that nobody has noticed below. Meaning that your whinging about what you allege to be false accusations of rules violations is meaninglessly minor in the face of your hundreds admitted rules violations. If you don't like being chafed by a ban and have some deep psychological need to edit here, maybe you should have exercised a little impulse control before ArbCom sanctioned you. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
You've missed nothing, you say, but you still fail to grasp the point that there's zero incentive for me to obey the rules. So I don't bother. Why should I? if I see an error in Wikipedia, I correct it. If I see an article that needs writing, I write it.
Actually, while I fully support the ban, and the reverting of Skyring's edits while he's banned, I have been wondering recently about the indefinite blocking of some IP addresses. I'm not at all well up on "open proxies" and "dynamic IPs", but I have noticed that Skyring's edits come from lots of different IP addresses, which suggests to me that these addresses are randomly assigned. That suggests that the indefinite blocks on User:203.51.25.229, User:203.51.25.90, User:139.168.158.170, User:203.51.24.117, etc. may be penalizing some innocent users. Ann Heneghan (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if I see the logic in reverting minor grammar corrections from anyone, even a banned user. If an IP can be determined to be in use by a banned user, sure, go ahead and block, but why revert? It's a bit petty, not to mention harmful to the encyclopedia. android79 12:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The only reason that anonymous IP edits get noticed as being Skyring's is because Skyring, like a zoo monkey hurling feces through the cage bars, deliberately draws attention to them. He wants the attention: improving Wikipedia is, at best, secondary to him. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Interesting but wrong. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I edit Wikipedia productively under several different registered accounts, and there must be hundreds of anon edits that nobody has noticed. If I highlight an edit as being mine, which I can do in several different ways, then it is to highlight a failing of the system, such as an admin deliberately vandalising another's user page, or reverting good edits in the hope that this will stop me making good edits.
Wikipedia as a whole is a remarkably good idea, but management and dispute resolution processes need a lot of work. What I find particularly interesting is the rigid enforcement of rules by those who do not see them as applying to themselves. The usual excuse is that suchandsuch is "a good editor", tirelessly reverting vandalism and so forth. Sure, but just as a good cop might arrest a lot of evil-doers, this does not excuse corruption and illegal behaviour on the part of the cop.
Boy, the irony of that last sentence is rich: you apparently want us to believe that your minor grammar edits justifies your behaving like a jackass. That Jtdrl has a short fuse doesn't in any way, shape, or form excuse your transparent attempts to provoke him: in fact, since you've been explicitly sanctioned by ArbCom for this jerky behavior, it should be abundantly clear to you that it's not going to be tolerated, and attempting to continue doing so will merely get you further sanctions -- which you will richly deserve. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
As the ancients put it Qui custodiet custodes?.
Not you, this very section -- and previous ones like it -- demonstrate how false your figleaf of concern for the sanctity of Wikipedia is. This very section -- and previous ones like it -- are why your IPs are blocked and your edits reversed. Just shut and make your anonymous corrections if grammar is really your concern, and nobody will say boo: carry on with your monkey-in-a-zoo-cage antics and expect to be blocked. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
"The sanctity of Wikipedia" - not my words, brother. If I bring something to attention here, I'm doing it because I'm highlighting a failing of procedure - not content. Perhaps you think I should just shut up about injustice, double standards and hypocrisy?

Does this mean all the IPs that got indefinitely blocked can be undone? ~~ N (t/c) 12:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Kicking when down[edit]

Let's not forget that kicking 'em when they're down isn't an OK thing to do here. Comparing anyone -- even a banned user -- to "a zoo monkey hurling feces through the cage bars" is a vile personal attack, and is not acceptable here. --FOo 04:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Personally, given Skyring's disgusting behaviour, I don't care if what's said about him is acceptable or not. I just wish people would stop feeding trolls - ie, stop responding to him!--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring now using phoney accounts and false edit summaries to sneak in edits[edit]

Note: Be warned. Having had his IPs frustrated, Skyring has now begun setting up phoney accounts to sneak in edits under new identities, using false edit summaries. For example:

  1. (cur) (last) 07:18, 22 October 2005 WaspFactory m
  2. (cur) (last) 07:17, 22 October 2005 WaspFactory m (fix link)

FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 14:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think his IPs have been frustrated?

David. Glad to see you're here. Perhaps you'd like to comment on User:AULDBITCH_LOVES_YOU?

Jeff Merkey strikes again[edit]

Another legal threat. --cesarb 23:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Kelly Martin 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Shortened to 24 hours. It's almost definitely a dynamic IP. ~~ N (t/c) 00:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Lengthened to a month. Looks pretty static to me. --Carnildo 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Doh, I didn't look back far enough. Sounds fine. ~~ N (t/c) 00:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Rightangel[edit]

Rhetorical question: which is worse, a neo-Nazi, or a troll masquerading as a neo-Nazi? This user vandalized Alkhemi by replacing text with images of Nazi insignia & Union Jack. He added same images to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alkhemi, with a misspelled, ungrammatical message in ALL CAPS. I have left a warning on this user's talk page, although another Admin might have just banned him. -- llywrch 00:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Only blocked for a week. I don't know why, but I've questioned enough administrator actions today. ~~ N (t/c) 00:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on their edit summaries (which say "gameover") and the fact he's replaced an entire article with two images one of which contains some form of a swastika, I think it's clear they're being intentionally disruptive. I'm not going to question a week-long block for such disruptive behavior. - Mgm|(talk) 13:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing[edit]

Hey, could I get an opinion on what's going on with this guy? He seems determined to piss off everybody in existence, and I don't want to seem unilateral here. Tell me what you think on my talk page. Karmafist 02:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

he emailed me, pointing to [12] -- reviewing his recent edits, I don't see any vandalism. Blocking for clear 3RRvio is uncontroversial, but you don't go blocking people for being "grumpy", or for 'believing they may be the instigator of problems, and reverting apparent consensus versions'. Your job isn't to prevent conflict. At first sight, you seem to be out on a limb here, policy-wise, so I recommend you let it be until you get unambiguous cases of 3RRvios or vandalism. dab 08:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I think your response is over the top. It takes 2 to edit war. Secretlondon 10:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to unblock Andy as it was only 24 hours - but I suggest that Karma gets himself a different article. I know you say on your user page that you have Aspergers - if you have problems understanding community rules (I know that many seem unwritten) then shout. You've not got it quite right currently. Secretlondon 11:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I followed policy(as shown in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing), Pigs had 3RRs on two days(he was not blocked because G-man made it ambiguous whether or not Pigs caused the 3RRs or if both were, guilty of 3RR, so I protected the page and asked for a compromise on the talk page. Apparently it was reached by both sides, Pigs ignored it, and unilaterally reverted it. He will do so again and again if he does not learn to work with others, and the only reason I asked for comment here is because I was unsure if this ban would only lead to another ban in the future, and if he does violate Policy 4 on Key Policies at WP:RULES again, I'll block him for longer, if not indefinately. All I want is for him to learn how to be civil and contribute to Wikipedia. If he cannot do the former, he cannot do the latter. I've seen no reason to stop watching over that article, as at this point, i'm fairly sure that Pigs will cause more problems there and elsewhere, and I request London apologize for his insensitive remarks regarding my disability. Karmafist 13:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't see any insensitive remarks. "If you need help, let me know" is rather friendly, actually. android79 14:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Karmafist, you will not have to answer for Pigs' actions, but for your own. You are out of line, and you do sound like a 'rogue admin' now. You will not block any established user for longer than one month without violating WP:BLOCK. No single admin gets to block users for "lack of respect". The most you can do is block people for 'disruption', as an emergency measure if somebody really keeps people from getting work done; repeat offenders, after due warnings, for up to and including one month, not longer. Blocking for 3RR may be done in a detached, straightforward manner, unlike blocks for 'lack of respect' or 'disruption', so you should take care to keep the two separate in your mind. No evidence for 3RRvios have been posted on WP:AN/3RR. You yourself said that Pigs and G-Man were equally 'borderline' about 3RRvios, and you blocked neither. You do realize, of course, that 3 reverts do not constitute a 3RRvio? This is not clear from your statement. It is true that both Pigs and G-Man appear to be gaming the 3RR, so protecting the article was a sensible move. 15:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The actual grounds Karmafist cited for the block - "You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia" - were unwarranted. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. The recent situation fits very accurately the description "Bullying or Stubbornness. Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism". Tearlach 16:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • indeed. I could see myself blocking such a user for 30 minutes, as a slap on the wrist, clearly stating that he is being blocked for disruptive edit-warring, not 'vandalism', and possibly put up a note here asking for second opinions. 130.60.142.65 19:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your comments. The vandalism comment was from a talk template error, which is my fault, but I still don't understand the hullaballoo here. He was being disruptive and broke several policies, as stated above on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Threat, I gave him a slap on the wrist that was prescribed under Disruption in WP:BLOCK, which I quote
For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours.
Which is what I did. He was being disruptive at Coleshill, Warwickshire. Since I've stepped in, the disruption there has stopped, and he has limited himself to ad nauseum attacks on myself at his talk page, which I still think violates CIVIL and WQT, but i'll ignore if it acts as a release valve for him towards acting out on articles and other users.
I don't understand this "Rogue Admin" tag, but regardless of it, I will continue to ask for advice from fellow admins when I feel I need outside assistance in a dispute, such as the beginnings of this thread, and I will continue to take that advice into account as I do my job as an admin. In my opinion, the Mediation system is too unresponsive and bureaucratic to solve problems like Pig's behavior, and I currently don't have the patience to reform it, so I'll do what I can to carry out Wikipedia's policies. My ultimate goal is to help Pigs evolve from his current state of random and frequent anger and incivility towards other users into a model Wikipedian, as I would with any problem user that I think I can help, and I ask any advice towards achieving this goal. My current belief is that he will eventually realize that his negative actions do not get him what he wants, and instead get him the opposite reaction, and he will act within WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT as a result. Karmafist 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Despite the condemnation of his actions under this sub-heading, Karmafist is claiming that this section is evidence that "the only person who believes i've abused my role as an administrator is you"; and is threateneing to block me permanently. Andy Mabbett 22:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Uncle G Work Bots blocked?[edit]

Looking through the block log I notice two Uncle G bots have been blocked. Why? --Rediscombe 19:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We had problems a while back with bots masquerading as legit editor's bots. Uncle G was notified that these bots were blocked and hasn't spoken up for them (as far as I know), so my assumption (and Curps' as well, I would assume) is that they are not legit. Uncle G would have come to us, rahter than creating two bots and letting them stay indefblocked. -- Essjay · Talk 19:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of not legit, the above question was posed by a WoW sock... android79 19:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for anyone who may wander along and wonder, from Uncle G's talk page:

Uncle_G's_NEW_Major_Work_Bot (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

I presume this isn't you? It's been blocked. -- Curps 10:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It's nothing to do with me. Uncle G 15:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The blocks are legit, and Rediscombe has been blocked as a WOW. -- Essjay · Talk 19:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sleeper Trolls & Sockpuppets[edit]

I'm sure you've all heard by now of supposed terrorist "sleeper cells" embedded in the US, seemingly leading normal, everyday, law-abiding lives, unsuspected by anyone, until that one day they get their "call" from their leader to awaken to unleash whatever heinous plot they were put in place to effectuate. I know for a fact that Wikipedia is hosting a similar phenomenon with its many "sleeper" trolls who create accounts and make legitimate edits, create friendships on-line, contribute, opine on policy, and generally become an accepted part of the Wikipedia community -- until they are "called" into action to wreak havoc on this site. Groups of these "sleeper trolls" right now are quietly contributing, not arousing suspicion, and will attack in coordinated fashion once they have won the trust of the general community.

The really scary part of it is that some of these "sleeper" accounts have done such a good job at crafting on-line friendships with other editors and making numerous (mostly minor) edits to articles that they have actually been elected/selected as Admins. I'm not saying that it has happened often, or that a large percentage of the 500 or so admins are in fact undercover "sleeper" trolls, but it is at least a handful -- enough to do major irreprable damage to the servers and stored information when they choose to attack.

I did catch wind of one plan in the works for one of them to quickly block the more dilligent admins while the other "sleeper" troll-admins quickly wipe out as much article info as possible before they are blocked/banned (while the first admin-troll busily keeps the "good" admins blocked and re-blocked from acting against them). It's more akin to a suicide attack, while the trolls know that doing that will get them banned (and negate all that time they spend winning people's trust) but the damage they can do to Wikipedia is worth it. Another thing is the "sleeper" troll-admins are emboldened by the fact that nobody gets de-sysopped on here anymore, nor has been for a long time.

Another version of this "game" is the "sleeper sockpuppet." Here a known troll creates numerous sockpuppet accounts and does only legitimate editing through them for several weeks, being careful to keep these "sleeper" socks very far away from the areas in which the "main" troll account is operating. Then, when matters with the original "troll" account get sticky or he needs some ready reinforcements on one of his schemes, he "calls up" his (seemingly legitimate user) "sleeper" sockpuppet accounts to support him. Since these sockpuppets often have hundreds of legitimate edits in their contribution history, they would not be suspected of being sockpuppets of a troll (since the great majority of sockpuppets are obvious, being brand new accounts with only a few edits to their history). The next time you see an established, respected, editor inexplicably leap to the defense of an obvious troll or disruptive editor, think about that. I think anyone who's been on Wikipedia long enough can think of instances that were puzzling at the time, but are now more understandable as being the work of "sleeper" trolls and sockpuppets. I hope this helps.Wikiphilosopher 20:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought if youre going to bother to attack Wikipedia, that would be the hardcore way to do it. I guess if that day comes, we'll see how strong the system really is. *Carries on editing*. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a nice bit of paranoia, I guess if someone actually agrees with a conservative around here, you need someway to call them a sockpuppet, if you didn't have that you might **gasp** actually have to respond civilly--Here I come to save the day 20:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Interesting speculation - entirely do-able if you had the time - but do you have any evidence to support this? Guettarda 20:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • To Guettarda: actually, I am in pretty "tight" with one of the cliques here, and I do have some evidence of this. Anyway, it was just a plan being discussed, I dont know whether it is going to be done; if admins can un-block themselves it'll take some tweaking. Plus, doing legitimate editing doesn't take that much time, the "sleepers" I personally know about do the "10+ a day" plan, where their goal is to make 10 legit edits on Wikipedia each day (one I knew even had it regimented into 5 article edits, 3 user talk edits to garner trust and friendship, and 2 policy page edits a day). That should only take 30-40 mins a day, and it adds up quick...In 3 months a sleeper account would have about 1000 edits, enough to make him a qualified admin candidate... Anyway, if I posted my hardcore evidence here, it would totally give away my identity (and many people would not work with me on articles again), but I think we know of a situation that's going on right now. Can you think of an admin on here that's suddenly been acting sort of "out of character" lately? That's a clue.Wikiphilosopher 20:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Pick an admin you trust, and email him/her the links. That keeps it confidential--Scimitar parley 20:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The irony is, that if these "sleeper" editors are contributing in sort-of-good-faith in order to make the appearances of a good-faith editor, they're helping the encyclopedia in the long-term, and when it comes time for them to rise up and wreak havoc, that'll be only temporary. Net result: Wikipedia is better. Not a terribly effective attack, if you take the long view. android79 20:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It generally takes a minimum of 2000 useful edits to become an admin. Personally I would consider this a small price to pay for an inevitably short-lived burst of vandalism at the end. - SimonP 20:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
An interesting theory, with one obvious flaw: an admin (who isn't a bureaucrat) cannot effectively block another admin, since they could immediately unblock themselves. A bureaucrat could de-sysop an admin and then block them, but suggesting that one of our 20 bureaucrats is a "sleeper" is even more far-fetched than your current theory. Owen× 20:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, bureaucrats can't desysop, they can only promote. It would take a steward or developer to desysop, and the liklihood of a sleeper gaining the kind of support needed to be elected a steward (stewards are elected across all projects, not just on one like b-crats) is so improbable as to be impossible. -- Essjay · Talk 20:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Wikiphilosopher, you've opened a can of beans. :-) android79 20:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiphilosopher, which troll are you a sockpuppet of? --Carnildo 20:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • haha, so we have "sleeper trolls" doing constructive work, contributing civilly, and actively trying to make WP a better place? That sounds like they are really defeating the definition of "troll" here. For all I care, we could use thousands of such helpful little creatures. Oh, and if they really carry out the dreaded onslaught (without being able to block any admins, have they thought of that), the worst that could happen would be that we'd have to lock the database for half an hour, and maybe have to reset it to half an hour before that, losing 30 minutes worth of edits. You know, maybe Jimbo Wales is a nefarious sleeping troll, secretly plotting to wreak havoc on Wikipedia in say 15 or 20 years? 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Some permanent damage could be done: image deletion and page history merges are irreversible. ~~ N (t/c) 21:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
not completely true but close enough to being true that for everyday stuff we assume it is.22:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

ACK!

19:04 < jwales> 666,666 articles? Ah, this is where I suddenly lock the database and reveal my evil satanic plans.

Jimbo really is a sleeper troll! ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 12:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It takes roughly 6 months of solid editing and about 2000 edits or so to be considered a strong admin candidate, representing hundreds of hours of work. It seems to me extremely unlikely that anyone would go through all that just to be able to get away with very slightly more destructive behaviour than a fresh account or anon IP could. The worst possible scenario would be a whole bunch of that happening at once, a coordinated attack from these sleeper-admins, anons, and vandalbots all at the same time, and... so what? At worst WP would have to roll itself back slightly to its pre-attack state, casing an outage of maybe an hour (we've certainly had worse outages than that for tech reasons). The sleeper-trolls will have put in an enormous amount of work for no real reward, and WP still gets the benefits of all their pre-attack work in exchange for a few minutes of chaos and a brief outage. No great harm would be done to WP or the world at large. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Strange Behavior[edit]

Anyone care to investigate the actions of El Marino de Ruasceyi (talk · contribs)? Only contribs have been adding {{TotallyDisputed}} to several articles. Thanks.--Sean Black Talk 22:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll watch future edits. It seems the user is brand new and started adding tags immediately. I put a note on their talk page welcoming them aboard and referenced WP:NPOV. Hopefully, this will take care of the situation. Let me know if you see anything out of the ordinary. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 22:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
FYI, you might reference the very top of this page. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I overreacted. Getting a little paranoid, I am! Anyways, thanks for helping. 1000+ and edits I'm still learning the ropes! Again, thanks. Cheers, Sean Black Talk 06:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

copyvio at Ivan Kotlyarevsky[edit]

Persistent copyright violations by user:Andrew Alexander at Ivan Kotlyarevsky article. See talk:Ivan Kotlyarevsky and history. --Irpen 04:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just added the page to my watchlist and reverted yet another copyvio by him. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I had to revert it once myself. Zach (Sound Off) 06:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
There was a note on the user's talk page that he was blocked for 3RR. The block was preformed by User:Jtkiefer, but I am not sure of what the durration of the block is. Zach (Sound Off) 06:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
24 hours. log. «»Who?¿?meta 06:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I blocked for 24 hours which he'll hopefully spend reading up on our rules, if however he comes back and contiues to insert copyvios and refuses to follow our rules then he'll unfortunately have to be perm blocked. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Another user continues reinserting the copyvio text. Maybe a sockpuppet --Irpen 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I warned a possible sock and another edit changing it back to the copyvio version was done by an established editor. I strongly ask for a neutral admin to lock the page. Zach (Sound Off) 22:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that the first copyvio violator user:Andrew Alexander is a sock of an "established" user:AndriyK. I appologize in advance if I am mistaken here. The latter user made 1 (one) useful contribution and the rest he did was changing names from non-Ukrainian to the Ukrainian ones, sometimes correctly, sometimes not. As for user:Andrew Alexander, all he did was inserting coyvios in two articles. I hope these aren't sockpuppet accounts. --Irpen 22:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I take your appologations, dear user Irpen. I am not a sock of user:Andrew Alexander. But please appologize once more for your miscount of the number of my usefull edits. Altough I have to admit that my contribution could be more essential if you and your friends would follow the wikipedia naming conventions and would not start edit was against me. Did you made any usefull edits recently?
What I have learned from Talk:Ivan Kotlyarevsky, user:Andrew Alexander have got a permission from the author to use the text in wikipedia. Is it not sufficient? I'll stop reverting so far.--AndriyK 00:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I apologize if it was indeed not one and the same person. As for useful contributions from me lately, not much, but at least something. For example, I rewrote the copyvio of Kotlyarevsky to an acceptable stub. As for your other edits that I reverted, not all of them were reverted and those that were reverted were all for good reasons and consensus at talk to which you opposed single-handily. This is not the page for this. Start an RfC if you like. --Irpen 00:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Apeman.jpg[edit]

This has been listed at IFd but possibly should be speedied as a horrendous personal attack on User:Khaosworks by user User:TheDoctor10. --TimPope 08:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Gamaliel, perhaps we can remove this thread as taken care of? Nobody can go check out the image anymore anyway (and I've no doubt Gamaliel did the right thing). Bishonen | talk 09:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Having second thoughts after looking at the talkpages of the users. Let's keep it as a "keeping an eye on User:TheDoctor10 thread". Bishonen | talk 09:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Check the talkpages of TimPope and Gamaliel for my comments on this. I've tried reasoning with Khaosworks, even offering to write to the script-writer of the program, but he refuses to move his position. Therefore, I will not compromise either.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 09:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I'd missed this one. You might as well get used to people making you a present of their "uninvolved" opinion, it's part of the culture of the place. Please review WP:CIV. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
My "refusal" was simply becasue I wasn't around to see that offer; I just got back from spending time with friends rather than being glued to a computer. Go figure. Compromise is also difficult when in his case, compromise means total surrender and letting unsourced and speculative original research in. In any case, as I have said numerous times, I welcome scrutiny. If TheDoctor10 believes I am overstepping any boundaries, he is welcome to file an RfC and bring it to the larger community. What he is not welcome to do is indulge in petty, immature personal attacks when he doesn't get his way. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 13:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

An RfC is unlikely to do any good, since the Khao-club seems to have many members. However, I shall write to RTD, see The End of the World. KW has "agreed" that if either RTD or the Beeb agree with me then the material stays there, at least until disproved.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:TINC. And don't misrepresent my position. I did not agree that at all. I said it doesn't matter if they agree it's good speculation - that makes it still speculation. I wanted a firm reply that was what was intended. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 14:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In reply to this rubbish highly creative and intellectual paragraph, see The End of the World.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Serminigo[edit]

New user User:Serminigo is creating a flurry of nonsense/vanity/ad articles. Wyss 16:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Am cleaning up, and have given him a final warning. Wikipedia is not a playground. -Splashtalk 16:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Note: what remains in his/her contribs list is not everything, since I have speedied two articles that were textbook patent nonsense, one that was a textbook nn-bio and another that was simple spamming for his/her website (a speedy per WP:VAND and G3). -Splashtalk 16:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
He hasn't edited since he saw my warning, so perhaps that's all. It'd be ok to report this kind of thing at WP:AIAV, by the way.
Thanks, he does seem to have gotten the hint. Everything he did was either quickly speedied or reverted. Wyss 16:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: there was a new user on the site for an hour or two. They created 3 or 4 testing non-articles (a flurry, as you say) and edited 2 other articles (without creating much of a scandal in either of them). You responded by accusing them of vandalism with an official-looking template on their talk page, deleting all their tests, despite one of them being marked {{userfy}}, and bringing their name to public attention making them look like an arch-vandal. Whatever happened to not biting the newcomers? Zocky 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

SuperTroll is one vandalbot attacker, Sophie/XAL may be the other[edit]

I blocked 62.24.136.0/21 for an hour earlier today after SuperTroll came back as User:SUP.TRO. - now he's back running a mass username creation for vandalbotting purposes, so I've blocked it again for three hours: "severe SuperTroll vandalbot attack from this IP range. We apologise for the inconvenience." Note I know of at least one good user this unfortunately catches as collateral damage. Roll on a good solution to bug 550. - David Gerard 17:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And now 83.92.128.0/17 for three hours ... which to me looks remarkably like the range used by Sophie/User:XAL, though of course i could be wrong - David Gerard 18:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that the above block appears to have stopped the wave at this moment. Take great care in unblocking for collateral damage. Also, check again in three hours! Keeping an eye out for the moment - David Gerard 18:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note for those blocking SuperTroll accounts; use {{Supertroll}}. -- Essjay · Talk 18:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I won't be here in three hours. The block for SuperTroll's home range is 62.24.136.0/20. (Unless it's actually even wider. Bah.) Note that this causes definite collateral damage, so if someone with a sane contribution list asks then just unblock it - David Gerard 18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, #wikipedia-en-newusers and #wikipedia-en-vandalism are bloody hypnotic - David Gerard 18:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks David, the CVU is very proud of them. -- Essjay · Talk 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

See User:SuperTroll for all I know about SuperTroll so far - David Gerard 20:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

David, I'm not about to argue with you about anything IP-related, but User:XAL run a vandalbot? I can't believe she'd have the skills. She doesn't remotely know her way round Wikipedia, or understand how anything works here, unless she's a consummate actress. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
That's one thing I was wondering. I surmised XAL based on (1) someone insanely pissed off at Wikipedia (2) in Denmark. Feel free to remove that from User:SuperTroll :-) - David Gerard 23:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think I will. Sophie is insanely pissed off at a handful of particular users, rather than the project, and I haven't seen any vandalism directed at those people, not even the evil Bishonene. Bishonen | talk 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It has come to my attention...[edit]

...That a number of addresses belonging to Google inc. have been flagged with {{vandal}}/{{test}} templates, it should be noted that any addresses on this Registered IP ranges (google) list, in fact belong to google crawl bots, whose uninhibited access to wikipedia servers is required to ensure a proper caching of the wikipedia server space, please do not block any of them, thank you.. ..It should also be noted that users who are recorded as using these ip ranges, are not actually using them, rather they are using a personal data device, such as a PDA, Cell Phone, etc.. that is wihout a traditional network proticol, resulting in wikipedia attributing these edits to the crawl bot used to access the page from google, blocking these would be counter productive, and should be avoided if possible.

  • As there is currently no administarive policy relating to these types of incidents, I feel it is apporpriate to bring this to your attention..

If possible a bot could be constructed to deleiver some sort of warning template to all the users within the ip ranges listed on this page Registered IP ranges (google).. Thank you for your cooperation --a concerned googler 20:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

...they are using a personal data device, such as a PDA, Cell Phone, etc.. that is wihout a traditional network proticol...

This is patently false. If they are not using IP, they can't get here. It is fundamental to the internet. I will further suggest, that they are probably using TCP/IP. They may or may not be using ethernet, but we don't really care about that. If we have vandalism from an IP address, then it came from there (or other extremely clever things were going on, which are beyond the scope of this discussion and unlikely in any event). Wikibofh 20:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Crawlbots should never have to edit articles. I doubt that "personal data devices" are proxied under the same IPs as Google crawlbots, especially because, as I last heard, Google does not provide Internet access for "personal data devices". ~~ N (t/c) 20:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The "wihout a traditional network proticol" bit above is total BS, which leads me to believe the entire post is BS. android79 20:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, no not actually. Google does operate a limited SMS->google gateway, but as far as I know you can't actually edit wikipedia via it. It would be possible however... None the less, a block on wikipedia will do nothing to hurt a crawler, so at least that much is BS. --Gmaxwell 21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
It used to be possible to edit Wikipedia via the Google WAP proxy. I no longer own a mobile phone, so I can't check this now, but if I remember rightly, it wasn't possible last time I tried this. The same was true for translation sites like Babelfish which would display edits with a Yahoo IP (example). If it is still possible to edit in this way, I think it's perfectly fair to block these IPs since they are effectively open proxies, and search engines shouldn't be indexing edit pages so won't be affected. Angela. 21:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I meant it was BS in the same sense that Wikibofh did – if they're not using IP to access Wikipedia, they must be using magic Internet fairies. Those we can do nothing about. ;-) android79 22:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. Just use a nice block message (e.g. "Wikipedia cannot be edited via your service"). ~~ N (t/c) 21:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
So, in other words, it's business as usual. :-) --HappyCamper 21:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Same user created Template:GoogleCRAWL, an incorrect warning about blocking Google IPs. Nominated for deletion. Rhobite 19:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandal users[edit]

In the last few minutes, I've blocked "User:Boothy 443_on_wheels", "User:WikiCommunist", and "User:WikiVandal". Be on the lookout for others. Meelar (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Any interested IRC user can join #wikipedia-en-newusers to see realtime, streaming new user creations. -- Essjay · Talk 22:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Node vandilizing the Moldova article[edit]

user:Node ue is vandalizing the Moldovan language article. He keeps reverting the article because he disagrees with another user who used the word "eliberated" when speaking about eliberating Moldova from Russian occupation. However, everytime he reverts the article, he not only reverts those edits that he expressed disagreement with, but also my edits. My edits consist of this fragment that I added to the article:

"The Moldavian chronicler, Grigore Ureche (1590 - 1647), established in his "Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei" (The Chronicles of the land of Moldavia) that Moldavian (Moldovan) and Wallachian (Romanian from Wallachia) are essentially the same language; and that Moldavians and Wallachians share the same ethnicity."

I reverted the article back, as have other Romanians; but then, another user, most likely a friend of Node, reverted it back. I asked him to leave my edits in place; I told him that there is no justification for removing them. His answer was to revert the article, again, saying:

"rv - two reasons 1 - it's almost 400 years old 2. It's a POV statement 3. you also reverted other things.. Also, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism - what node didn't isn't vandalism. Hardly"

Am I insane? Isn't the article about Moldovan language? Aren't we supposed to talk about its history, even if it's 400 years old? Ureche was a respected chronicler and he was given support by the Moldavian Prince. Dimitrie Cantemir would later say the same thing. What's with the POV? I want to know why my fragment doesn't deserve its place in that article.

See the history of the edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&action=history

--Anittas 02:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hidden block[edit]

I was editign from my AOL dial-up, and ran into teh folowing block notice:

You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by [[User:|User:]].

The reason given is this: Auto-added for persistent vandalism; possible open proxy.

You can email or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. You may also edit your user talk page if you wish. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.

Your IP address is 152.163.100.198. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

Note this is not an open proxy, it is a shared AOL IP. Note also, i can't find a record of this block in the block list or the block log. Why can't the block list be viewed sorted by IP? (or if it can, how do I do this?) Note also that this block only blocks my editing of a particular page, as AOL assigns IP addresses sucgh they they vary based on the URL being addressed. DES (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

And who is [[User:|User:]]? Some automated blocker in the MediaWiki software? ~~ N (t/c) 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe [[User:|User:]] is what shows up when a block is made by direct database access. --Carnildo 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is another similar block. tjhis is getting rather annoying.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by [[User:|User:]].

The reason given is this: Auto-added for persistent vandalism; possible open proxy.

You can email or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. You may also edit your user talk page if you wish. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.

Your IP address is 152.163.100.199. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

How can i unblock these IPs? DES (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Try giving the IP address a one-minute block. When that times out, all blocks for that address should be removed. If you don't want to wait for it to time out, remove your block yourself, and again, all blocks on that IP should be removed.-gadfium 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll try the one-minute block. thanks. DES (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

These strange blocks have come up before (IIRC in this same page), and I found an explanation about them at de:Benutzer Diskussion:SORBS DNSBL#Ipblocklist. Someone else translated it last time, so it might be worth it to try finding it in the archives. --cesarb 19:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

b I am back!![edit]

IO just wanted to let you all everyone and them know that I'm back and thank you very myuch of Redwolf24 (matt) and Lucky9.6 (Raplph)~ I even did some edits on Tempelhofen Internatinal Airport just now thank you very much good night!Wiki brah 04:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)