Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Everyking (talk | contribs) at 05:23, 18 May 2005 (→[[User:The truth about hephaestos]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion



    Mixedfolks

    Somebody seems to have MOVEd the Wikipedia:Sandbox to Mixedfolks. Do we care about the edit history of the sandbox, or can we let this go? RickK 05:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    The Sandbox has been moved a million times. Of all pages to move, the Sandbox is the least of my worries. Let the newbies/vandals have a ball with moving this; it's easy enough to move back and delete the redirect. If it keeps them from moving the rest, I'll be happy. JRM · Talk 08:15, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    Oh, all this is not to say the user doing the move shouldn't be slapped on the wrist and blocked if they persist in doing it, of course. Testing is one thing, being a dick is another. JRM · Talk 08:26, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    But the problem is not that we have lost the edit history of the Sandbox so much, as that the edit history of Mixedfolks is hundreds of Sandbox edits. RickK 08:48, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Urrrk. What the hell happened here? Did someone just recreate the sandbox instead of moving the Mixedfolks article back? What a mess. I say delete all the sandbox revisions from the Mixedfolks history. This is not a GFDL violation since neither the current Sandbox nor the current Mixedfolks article have any content in common with those revisions; they are not derived works by any stretch of the imagination. (And even if I'm wrong, nobody's gonna sue.) JRM · Talk 10:14, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

    User:Statistics

    A troll whose sole purpose seems to be to stir up trouble. RickK 09:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, what the hell? That was totally uncalled for. El_C 09:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, what are you referring to? RickK 22:41, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    User:Statistics' personal attack. El_C 22:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    RickK, you deleted my comment which gave a user's factual edit history, taken from Wikipedia's own records, because you called that a "personal attack". My listing of facts taken from Wikipedia's own records were in answer to the blocking of another user based on his edit history.

    You don't call blocking based on edit history a personal attack, but you call my noting that others have a similar edit history to the user blocked a "personal attack". Then you label me a troll, without listing any factual basis, but you don't consider that a personal attack.

    Is your contention that some editors are above any criticism, even objectively pointing out their numbers of edits?

    You're not hurting me when you delete my comments, but you are depriving anyone who reads this of an alternate view. By what right do you decide what Wikipedia gets to read, and what gets censored? Statistics 09:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia policy is to delete personal attacks. Your entire raison d'etre is to make personal attacks on other users, in particular, Snowspinner. RickK 20:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    I think you have to go way out on a limb to say that posting some factual statistics is personally attacking someone. No personal attacks isn't a policy meant to stifle meaningful discussion about users; it's only meant to curb excessive and counterproductive hostility. I remember once User:Calton compiled a whole bunch of statistics on me regarding my edit history on a certain article, which supposedly illustrated that I was somehow dominating the article (never mind that I was the only one with an interest in the subject matter—you might expect me to have made the most edits, huh?), and not only was that considered OK, several other users made a point of repeating those statistics frequently as if they were some kind of evidence against me. So what is the difference? Everyking 20:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    [For the record: my comment, deleted by RickK, was in response to the blocking of a editor based on the fact that that editor's first edits were to Wikipedia policy pages: Deleted Personal Attack El_C 09:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)][reply]

    If I deleted a comment of yours, El C, it was entirely unintentional, and I apologize for that. I was trying to delete the personal attacks that Statistics insists on making all over the place. RickK 20:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    You didn't Rick, someone separated the comments (the above small print is a notice for my deletion of User:Statistics' personal attack which you reverted twice — anything in normal text is, in fact, his/her words), so no need for an apology. And I fully agree with you that the notice board is not the place for personal attacks masquerading as a Statistical Abstract. El_C 22:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence of sockputtetry or trolling?

    comments below censored by both RickK and El C. Tsk tsk. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

    Snowspinner tells us that User:Legion of Trolls "went straight for policy pages" suggesting that that is indicative of either trolling or reincarnation. RickK says "Clearly a returning sock puppet with an axe to grind, clear trolling."
    It should be noted that on Snowspinner's very first day at Wikipedia, on 18 April 2004, Snowspinner himself made 16 edits to the Wikipedia namespace: 10 of those to Votes_for_Deletion, and two each to Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship. (Ironically, one of Snowspinner's votes was to argue against a deleting a page RickK had listed for deletion.)
    Do most new users know about Votes for Deletion, much less the much more obscure Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship? Ask yourself how soon into your Wikipedia career it was when you first learned about those pages. Statistics 08:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)][reply]
    My first edits happened to be to the VFD as well. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Your insinuations under the guise of 'facts' are intentionally inflamatory. I deleted them, too. You incorrectly cite a reason for the block ("edit history" per se.) as grounds for directing them against Snowspinner. I dispute that. Let me spell it out for you: Username = Legion of trolls. Edits: 1. Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; 2. Wikipedia:What is a troll; Wikipedia:What is a troll. El_C 09:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, you and RickK are either i) falling for a troll, or ii) dancing on the line (if not over it) in deleting a comment that basically does nothing but cite the same kind of data others are using against LoT. Yes, it's intended to be critical, but so what? Criticism NotEQ personal attack. In deleting this stuff, you all are at best just making more trouble, and at worst falling for a troll. Just let it be. Noel (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear hear. On this side: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. On that side: don't feed the trolls. You can walk either way, but censoring comments is neither here nor there. JRM · Talk 14:01, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

    El C, I have no problem with your disputing the reasons for the block. You have every right to state your opinions on the matter.

    But one of the reasons given for the block was that the user, and I quote, "went straight for policy pages".

    Why is it that you are allowed to state your opinions, but you delete my statements of facts? Is calling my statement of facts "insinuations... intentionally inflammatory" not a personal attack by you against me? And why do you put "facts" in scare-quotes, when the data is taken directly from Wikipedia's own records?

    According to your user page, you are "an historian specializing in British, African, Chinese, and Middle-Eastern history." Don't historians believe in free and open discussions without censorship? Statistics 10:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I find the statistics interesting and I doubt that I'm alone. Please don't try to silence those who raise legitimate (if perhaps unpleasant for some of us) questions with accusations of trolling. I hope no one has already gone and banned this user. Everyking 13:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, Rick, I'm going to slip in ahead of you (wau, again today) and note in response to Everyking, that on 17:40, 15 May 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:Statistics" with an expiry time of indefinite (Created for the purpose of trolling Wikipedia) — Good call, Tony! El_C 23:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolutely outrageous. I won't get into a blocking war, but I do register the strongest possible protest. We must learn to tolerate those who disagree with us, and those we do not like. Everyking 23:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad you weren't willing to extend the same courtesy to anyone having the temerity to edit your (and I mean that possessive explicitly) Ashlee Simpson articles or you wouldn't have gotten spanked for your behavior. And to save you the time, I'll note no one believes your denials -- no one -- and no one will believe the blustery denial that, as sure as the sun rises in the East, will follow this posting. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that, in the course of this discussion, that is the closest thing to an actual personal attack that I've seen yet. Everyking 00:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a statement of fact mixed with criticisms of personal behavior and predictions of behavior based upon long-observed precedent. I would say that being unable to distinguish between statements of fact and criticism inconvenient to your worldview and of personal attacks is part of your problem. I would say that finding it acceptable to offer up unsolicted whines and complaints and not have them considered personal attacks is part of your problem. I would say that believing you are somehow immune to personal criticism of your behavior but is something you feel perfectly entitled to indulge in yourself or have done by others against your perceived enemies is part of your problem. I would say that thinking that disguising personal attacks by phrasing them passive-aggressively would pass muster is part of your problem. I would say that you seem to believe that gaming the system and "gaming the refs" are acceptable ways to defy consensus and policy is part of your problem. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, why am I not surprised that you are happy to see personal attacks against other people with whom you disagree? What do these so-called statistics serve, other than to try to stir up resentment against Snowspinner? Who is this person who comes in with the ID of Statistics and starts creating these statistics? Why was he/she posting as an anon on the Village Pump with the same sort of nonsense statistics and has now created an account? What is gained by this information? RickK 20:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    The block log is available to anyone. You'll be pleased to know the sky hasn't come down. While the only statistics I care about are these, I don't mind if someone gathers other ones. I would ask that they not be posted here, however. A link to a user page will do just fine. Reserve this page for specific comments on specific conduct, not for suggestive data dumps. JRM · Talk 14:01, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

    I'd respond to all of this, but I did it before, on my first RFA. So here's the text with which I responded to HCheney when he asked why I edited RFA my first day:

    The edit was a non-voting edit in the process of discussing UninvitedCompany's nomination. There was some discussion over the fact that UninvitedCompany had previously used a different account. Someone mentioned a "reason for concern that they didn't feel comfortable going into." Another person asked what this reason was. I speculated that it was the use of a different account that had been mentioned elsewhere in the discussion. As for why I was on the page so early in my Wikilife, it's linked to off of Community Portal, and I was on Community Portal because it seemed like a very sensible page for a user to hit on his first day. I saw the link to RfA, I followed it out of curiosity, I saw the discussion, I attempted to clarify. There's really nothing sinister at all about it. (In fact, it's possible that the edit in question wasn't even originally made under my name - my April 18th edits were, I believe, all IP edits that I had assigned to my username later on.) Snowspinner 03:09, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

    I also need not point out that the criticism is a straw man of my argument - immediate gravitation to policy pages is one thing. Immediate gravitation to obscure policy pages while ranting about an arbcom cabal is another. VfD and RFA are pages regularly linked to - VfD off of RC, RFA off of Community Portal, both sensible places for a newbie to go. Furthermore, one of my first edits was [1]. from an IP, because I was hesitant about the whole idea of editing the page, so I looked for somewhere to warn the people in charge that I had removed some content in case I wasn't actually allowed, and found RC patrol. Presumably I found the other pages while stumbling around as well.

    As for the rest, I point out that User:Statistics resembles User:orthogonal in most regards, that he has clearly arrived to disruptively make a point instead of enter a discussion (Which would be better achieved under his own username), and that his status as a not-banned user can probably be ascribed to his departing Wikipedia when an arbcom case was raised against him and coming back as sockpuppets, not on any good conduct.

    If y'all wanna listen to this crap, I can't stop you, but I can't help but notice that most of the people who are seem to have already made up their minds about me. Snowspinner 14:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    You're being too sensitive (or something). Just because I think it's OK to post discussion of LoT's history doesn't mean I listen much to it - or to the posting of yours. So you don't need to either contrast your record (or justify it, not quite sure what you had in mind); you've accumulated a long one since then anyway (this last observation is not to be read as pro or con). (FWIW: I was far more taken by the contents of their first post - anyone who starts out with The ArbCom Cabal and the rogue admins, you know they are not a new user.) Again, don't feel the trolls! Noel (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I've assessed the situation and here's my conclusion. Any conflict involving RickK will likely be resolved by removing RickK's opponent(s) from the equation. Why? A simple cost-benefit analysis suggests that RicK's extensive track record is more valuable; at least, that's how I think the decision-makers will view such conflicts. Fairness? Justice? Wikipedia is governed by popularity. So, I impersonally advise RickK's opponents: step off. Adraeus 15:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a joke, right? Please, tell me this is a joke. If you disagree with RickK you will be 'removed from the equation'? Intrigue 16:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's a joke. He meant Snowspinner. JRM · Talk 16:16, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what Adraeus's "simple cost-benefit analysis" consists in, but if it's number of edits to actual articles, that is building the encyclopedia, then perhaps Adraeus would likewise argue that RickK shouldn't argue with Everyking. But then, both of them are trumped by a couple of anons, one whose edits are mainly about rock stars, and one whose edits are exclusively about airports:
    Percentage of Edits to:Average Edits per Day to:Number of Edits to:Total:Editing Period:
    EditorArticlesTalkUserOtherArticlesTalkUserOtherArticlesTalkUserOtherEditsDaysper DayFromTo
    RickK42%35%14%9%33.8228.2411.257.6141834913994100012.3680.9100:43, 3 May 2005 09:20, 15 May 2005
     
    Everyking90%2%2%6%154.633.773.269.7790222195710005.83171.4318:29, 9 May 2005 14:29, 15 May 2005
     
    68.197.107.7196%4%0%0%8.490.370.000.009134000953107.498.8702:40, 28 Jan 2005 15:24, 15 May 2005
     
    131.204.194.154100%0%0%0%14.810.000.000.001000000100067.5214.8102:34, 3 Mar 2005 15:59, 9 May 2005
    Statistics 16:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:Wau.gif El_C 21:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, here we go. Statistics gets his nose tweaked, and he decides to lash back. Again, these "statistics" are a propos of nothing. RickK 20:51, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    Explanation of Tony Sidaway's block of Pioneer-12, who isn't doing anything wrong.

    I also mailed a copy of this to Wikien-L.

    Pioneer-12 disputes the application of the GFDL to his signed contributions on talk namespace, a fact that only became apparent to me a few minutes ago, but he has continued to contribute disputed material to talk space.

    To avoid further disputed material being contributed I have blocked him--I know this is going to be controversial because he hasn't really done anything "wrong", it's just a legal dispute between him and Wikipedia, so I'm not going to engage in arguments over this, but it seems to me like the best way to limit the potential damage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a problem with this block. If a user refuses to accept WP licencing policy, he has no business editing anyway. dab (ᛏ) 15:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He can pretend that it isn't so, but all his contributions - including to talk pages - are GFDL licensed. Since he has made legal threats, he should be reprimanded or blocked. Rhobite 17:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Works for me. By submitting comments he's already agreed to license them under the GFDL, but if there's an implied legal threat, block away. --W(t) 17:17, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

    Abortion

    Abortion has just been removed to Abortion (medical term) without prior discussion by Nauseam. I strongly don't think this is right without discussion. Can an admin please change it back? then maybe we can hacvve a discussion. Abortion is a very POV charged article, and thi strikes me as too drastic an action be taken unilaaterally and without prior discussion --SqueakBox 00:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

    I've moved it back, but this doesn't require an administrator to do. You could have done this yourself.-gadfium 00:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think the database credits me with the move because gadfium and I clicked on the move link at the same time, only I was a millisecond faster. But, the system currently prevents users who have recently registered their accounts to move pages. But since SqueakBox has been here a while, I agree he could have done it himself. 10qwerty 00:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I would muddle up the histories if i tried, and that only an admin could. Next time I will try myself. Cheers for the speedy response, --SqueakBox 01:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

    NPOV/BCE-CE Proposal Depate

    Gene Nygaard first added material to my proposal (I do not mean he added comments in the discussion section, or caste his vote, I mean he changed the text of my proposal); then he retitled my proposal "A proposal re BCE-CE Debate." I think this is uncalled for — it is my proposal, and I followed all protocals. Worse, the consequence of his doing this is that the page is totally screwed up, with hundreds of kilobytes duplicated, sections mixed up. This may be unintentional, but the effect is vandalism. I have spent an hour trying to fix it and all my fixes authomatically revert to the messed up state it was in.

    You should have put an explicit notice on the page that the proposal was not to be edited, and any discussions for change should be taken to the talk page. Instead you put up (apparently, correct me if I'm misreading the edit history): "If people think they can rephrase what I have written to make it more eloquent, by all means do so. But I think any discussion should follow the proposal." Don't be surprised if people jump on such an invitation and run off with it to places you didn't want it to go.
    By default, every page is editable unless someone explicitly asks to please not do it (which is then generally respected). It's true that there is an unwritten rule that proposals "belong" to the proposer and changes can only be made after discussion on the talk page, and this is why I invented Wikipedia:Edit this proposal for Wikipedia:Countdown deletion to explicitly demolish this rule. There is, to my knowledge, no explicit notice in the policy drafting guidelines that says you definitely shouldn't edit (and if there is, it isn't prominent enough).
    Nygaard is the victim of a well known bug that duplicates sections when there is an edit conflict; rather than reporting the conflict, MediaWiki may instead happily duplicate the entire section, one version with the edit, one without. When Benedict XVI was on the front page, many people did nothing else but fix the continuous duplication caused by innocent edits.
    As far as "reprimandes" and "disciplines" go: Wikipedia does not operate a punitive system, despite common opinion and sometimes appearances; the primary angle is to discourage unproductivity (vandalism, revert warring, POV pushing) and encourage cooperation. "Disciplining" Nygaard would do nothing to that effect, as I seriously doubt he was acting in bad faith. You're better off explaining why what he did seriously messed up your day—politely. Assume good faith, and Hanlon's Razor. JRM · Talk 16:00, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
    I removed the protection and the duplicated section.Geni 16:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a feeling that you removed more than the duplicated section (or someone did; I can't make out the history). I hit three edit conflicts, and after the third, the section to which I was trying to add my comment was gone with all its contents. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me be clear about the problem. I made it explicitly clear that if anyone could improve ths style of the proposal, they should, but that if they had comments (pro or con) they were to go below the proposal. This is not an article, which as a collaborative project anyone can work on. It is a proposal I am proposing. Gene Nygaard is opposed to the proposal. He has that right. There is a section in which anyone can express their criticisms of the proposal, and a section in which anyone can vote against the proposal. And the Talk page. But this is not an article "about" something, it is my proposal. Gene Nygaard's actions are simply vandalism.

    My proposal hinges on an NPOV argument, it is the very essense" of the proposal. Nygard does not agree. Fine, he can explain why in the discussion section and vote no. But instead, he created a duplicate article in order to remove "NPOV" from the title. He changed the text of the proposal, with the effect that it was now proposing something that I was not proposing. These are acts of vandalism. Wikipedia is not a punitive culture, but we often block people from articles and in this case there is good reason. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand exactly what has gone on, but it doesn't seem reasonable for me for someone who is opposed to this measure to be re-wording the argument of those who support it. Jayjg (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Chronic reversion of Static Shock et al.

    User:Bishonen asked me to bring this here from WP:VIP.

    I've been struggling with a user who chronically reverts others' work on Static Shock (history) and several other (mostly related) pages he has an interest in, to his versions. Although I'm fairly certain of his identity (see User talk:Mare-Silverus), lately he's been editing anonymously and every session comes from a different IP, most recently 84.65.70.122 (talk · contribs) and 84.64.55.238 (talk · contribs). Some way of preventing these wholesale reverts would be very helpful. (And if there's a dispute-resolution process for dealing with non-communicative users, I'd love to try it. {sigh}) Tverbeek 18:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: 81.77.106.201 (talk · contribs) Tverbeek 13:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hamidifar at WP:VIP

    User:Hamidifar has posted accusations on WP:VIP that a whole VFD vote constituted "vandalism". Mindspillage closed the vote, so she's a vandal, among many others. After there had been an extended discussions, right there on VIP, and a lot of firendly considerate explanations to the newbie (= POV warrior) why the VFD wasn't vandalism and why his screed shouldn't be on VIP, I removed it and placed it on his talkpage, with a note. He's put it back several times, and has had it removed by others. Nobody's bitten him, but people's tempers are beginning to fray a little, as he himself is Jaws. I've warned him on his talkpage that he'll get blocked if he puts the nonsense back on VIP yet again. He just did. I'm in two minds whether to block. As long as that's all he does, I suppose we might just leave it there. It sure is lowering the tone of VIP, though. Could people help me keep an eye on him? --Bishonen | talk 19:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I also threatened him with blocking if he removed the vfd message from an article again (i.e., for a sixth time!), but the article was protected before he got the opportunity to. He's walking a pretty thin line. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he was the one who requested protection. I guess he thought that it would be protected without the VfD notice, or protected from deletion, or something. Then he listed me as a vandal for protecting it. Rhobite 01:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    Hmmm... I sent a reply to Hamidifar that what he describes isn't vandalism, and suggested he go through the dispute resolution process. I'm not sure if that's feeding the troll, but going through dispute resolution might be good for him. --Deathphoenix 13:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Good for him, very frazzling for everyone else. Anyway, I think a cooling-off period would be even better—he just reinserted his misplaced and aggressive text yet again on VIF, by his own count for the 7th time, with yet another insulting edit summary. I've blocked for 24 hours. --Bishonen | talk 14:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    True enough. Good to know. Maybe this will give him time to cool off, maybe not. --Deathphoenix 21:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LevelCheck and his "Wikipedia Death Penalty" page

    LevelCheck (talk · contribs) recently created Wikipedia:Wikipedia Death Penalty -- a page promoting that "All edits made by users under a Wikipedia Death Penalty will be immediately reverted by the community, regardless of their content". One might think this was either a joke, or perhaps a random bit of disruption, but LevelCheck has introduced this BS by sequentially reverting a number of my edits with the simple reason of "rv netoholic" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

    His "proposal" is up for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia Death Penalty. I'd like to ask administrators to keep an eye out for any more vandalism on his part against anyone else, until the predictable end of his Arbitration case. -- Netoholic @ 02:23, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

    • First of all, I have the right to make up to three reverts a day to each article. Reversion is not vandalism. Secondly, you of all people have no right to complain about attempts to force failed policy proposals into being, given the actions surrounding your own Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. If the community allows your actions to stand, but not mine, it will only showcase a hypocrisy not known since the Pharisees. LevelCheck 02:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not trying to force that page into policy, only try and convince quarrelsome users like yourself to listen to the good direction given us by the primary database developer. Even still, don't listen to me if you don't like me, make your judgements based on the words of that highly respected person. And don't be intentionally disruptive just to prove your point. -- Netoholic @ 02:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
      • Trolling is not permissible in any context, nor is disruption to make a point. Stop, please. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    You say "I have the right to make up to three reverts a day to each article." No you don't. To assume this would be a very, very big mistake. Go back and read The Three Revert Rule. Very carefully. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    What right would you say he has, then? Everyking 02:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again! :) El_C 03:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Drink! (Complaint!) --Calton | Talk 03:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your problem is. Apparently I can't say anything. Everyking 03:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Drink (Bitter hyperbolic strawman!) --Calton | Talk 06:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the Intent of the policy section of Three-revert rule,
    "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others."
    The three-revert rule doesn't confer rights, it specifically restricts them as a way of creating a speed bump in edit wars. If I were go go around and revert every one of Calton's edits (for example), I would expect to be sanctioned even if it amounted to making only one revert per page. The three-revert rule isn't the only policy on Wikipedia that governs the use of reverts, though unfortunately that's a popular misconception in some circles. WP:POINT, WP:Wikiquette, and many others can also apply. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all I have to say is that I think it's silly that we're always talking about the 3RR on one hand, but then when someone makes the obvious interpretation that it's a right, someone yells at them that it's not a right. Probably we need to develop more clear and objective standards and policies, so that we can apply things equally to everyone and enable everyone to easily see what their rights are. Everyking 04:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If the wording on Three-revert rule needs to be clarified, I'm sure that your suggestions would be welcome. I think that the "not an entitlement" passage is pretty explicit, but perhaps it should appear more prominently in the policy...? I presume it's not your intention to suggest that three reverts per article per day should be an entitlement. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any great solutions, but yeah, to just talk about the issue in general terms, I think editors basically should have an infinite entitlement to revert, so long as they don't do so in defiance of some sort of general opinion held by other editors. I'm pretty strongly in favor of page protections and very stridently opposed to user blocks in most of these kinds of cases. But that's just my opinion; I suppose there's nothing much that can realistically be done about it now. Everyking 05:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for the three-revert rule in the first place is because the "infinite entitlement to revert" manifestly did not work, and a way of controlling sterile edit wars and/or stubborn individual editors was needed. Considering that you got into trouble for believing yourself entitled to control some articles by continual reversions -- and manifestly in defiance of general opinion held by other editors, despite your continual denial of it happening -- I find your opinion here to be more than a little self-serving. --Calton | Talk 06:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In that dispute I was the one trying to keep things from getting into revert warring, and to keep the revert warring from continuing through compromise, so your point is meaningless. I'm going to start having a Drink! every time you make some attack on me based on nothing more than a ridiculous personality feud (which, I might add, you started, and I have repeatedly tried to be conciliatory, only to get yet more bitter sarcasm in response). Everyking 06:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Two outright falsehoods, one complete misreading (to give the benefit of the doubt), and two examples of psychological projection/hypocrisy -- in that order -- all in one short paragraph. That certainly takes talent. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    (Losing indent.) Seems to me the comments are all a little off focus here. The worst part of LevelCheck's actions isn't reverting any particular articles, or even general trolling and disruption. It's the harrassment and taunting of one particular user, especially one in a vulnerable position like Netoholic, who is currently on probation under a mentorship system. LevelCheck appears to be well aware of this and taking advantage of it ("you of all people have no right to complain"). Netoholic shouldn't have to wait for the end of arbitration for this outrageous behavior to stop. Can somebody please tell me some blocking policy that applies? --Bishonen | talk 04:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    His template:tfd edits were clearly disruptive, and deleting Netoholic's comments is unacceptable. I don't have a problem blocking him if he continues to make disruptive edits. Rhobite 05:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    I don't have a problem with applying the Wikipedia Death Penalty to him. --Carnildo 06:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither. He could be tempblocked for disruption. Permablocked if it's proven he's a sock (since he'd then be a disruptive sock). --Deathphoenix 13:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be perfecly acceptable to block him for disruption, in my opinion. Proteus (Talk) 14:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Is LevelCheck an extraordinarily clever satirist of Wikipedia mores, or is he just behaving obnoxiously for the hell of it? —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know the user from any other context, but the implications here seem to me more that he's behaving obnoxiously because he hates Netoholic. Thanks for the input, guys. I've warned LevelCheck that I will block him immediately if he reverts Netoholic just once more without offering even a semblance of a good-faith reason.--Bishonen | talk 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he's hardly the only one to harass Netoholic since the arbitration case was closed; he's just going a bit further than anyone else. That was what tipped me off; a read of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck/Evidence was illuminating as well. He seems to be deliberately parodying certain all-too-common behaviors; I think he's testing how far someone can go with these sorts of things before he gets blocked or banned. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He is indeed not the only one, but I'm not sure what your point is, Mirv—for myself, I think that makes LevelCheck's actions worse, not better. I don't have any sense of humor about it at all. It's not open season on Netoholic because others are already harrassing him.--Bishonen | talk 22:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Is NoPuzzleStranger Wik?

    148.223.216.169 (talk · contributions) (Lir) has made numberous accusations that NoPuzzleStranger (talk · contributions) is hard-banned user Wik/Gzornenplatz. Taking a look, I do see similarities, including an obsession with diacritic markings and English transliteration on place names (Ubeda and Gdansk). Also, this user from the start (first edits Feb 2005, but starting in earnest on March 20) seems extremely familiar with Wikipedia processes, culture, and people. Welcome more input on this. -- Netoholic @ 16:03, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

    I don't see the characteristic IP evidence for Wik/Gzornenplatz, but that doesn't prove no link, of course. Perhaps someone could ask NoPuzzleStranger nicely if they are Wik/Gzornenplatz. Wik/Gzornenplatz is still welcome to appeal the last AC ruling, as our decision on Gz fairly screams at him to actually do ... - David Gerard 16:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If banned users enjoy continuing to stalk each other, couldn't they at least find some other wiki where they're not banned to do it on? --Michael Snow 17:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you know that 148.223.216.169 is Lir? If he is, the ID should be blocked, as Lir is hard banned. RickK 19:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

    Self-admitted. -- Netoholic @ 20:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

    Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

    moved from WP:AN

    Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, who I understand to be a valued member of the community who has contributed much to Wikipedia, and who is also an administrator, appears to have embarked on a deletion rampage. He is trying to erase all trace of himself from Wikipedia, presumably as a prelude to faking his own death and adopting a new identity. I believe he is within his rights to delete his own user page (although this is highly confusing for everyone else, and it would be better if he just replaced it with a note to say he'd left), but he has also deleted his talk page (repeatedly), instead of just archiving it to preserve discussions. However, it goes well beyond that. He appears to be deleting any talk page he has commented on where he feels he can get away with it, including talk pages of anonymous users where he has left messages either welcoming them or warning them for vandalism, and (it appears) a few talk pages where others have commented, thus performing wholesale deletions of their comments and his own. The erstwhile vandal-hunter, it appears, has turned vandal himself. There have been instances of him deleting his comments from talk pages so as to render subsequent comments without context, such as this, where the user who has written "another welcome" is made to appear stupid, as theirs is now the first welcome on the page. Worst of all, he is removing content he has contributed from the article space. Little Belt Bridge used to have a picture towards the bottom of the page, but now there's just a missing image message, because of Ævar's deletion of Image:The_Little_Belt_Bridge_(1935)_(Scaffold_-_02).jpeg. The same goes for Image:XChat.png on X-Chat These image deletions are particularly egregious, because unlike page deletions they can't be restored. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ævar is a developer, in which case if he wanted to remove his name from Wikipedia surely he would be able to reassign all his edits to a pseudonymous account. To delete what he thinks he can get away with here and there seems pointless, as his name will still be in countless places on talk pages and in article histories. I could go on, but I'd recommend looking at Special:Contributions/Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and the deletion logs for the full story. I trust that all his unauthorized deletions will be restored somehow, and perhaps, this user will need to lose his sysop status to stop him from going round deleting them again. His image deletions can presumably be restored from Wikipedia mirrors. Thanks for taking the time to read my complaint. - Moshe (217.44.22.199), a long-time reader and observer of Wikipedia, 14:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed this looks strange. See his recent deletions, and, as Moshe pointed out, his contribs. I don't have time to investigate further, but so far I don't like at all what I see (someone unilaterally removing all images he published (under the GFDL) on wikipedia). Can someone else take a close look? Lupo 14:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I re-uploaded the Little Belt Bridge picture from an old dump I have. I can restore old pictures but nothing recent. Rhobite 16:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    He deleted a whole bunch of images - any chance you (or anyone else who has a dump) could restore more of them? Noel (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I feel comfortable restoring images which were never used as content. Technically they're GFDL but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until someone gets to the bottom of this. Are there other images which were used in articles? I'm going to re-upload the Xchat one, and I think I found one other image which was removed from an article. Rhobite 19:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

    could a developer speed-de-admin him, please? this would qualify as rogue admin behaviour, even if restricted to his own uploads, such is the GFDL. dab (ᛏ) 16:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    He's temporarily desysopped until WTF is going on is known. silsor 16:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

    I'm not really sure what's up, but note that while Avar is active in MediaWiki software development he doesn't have an account on the servers and could not "reassign all his edits to a pseudonymous account" or whathaveyou. --Brion 17:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

    This is really bizarre. I was thinking for a moment that possibly someone guessed the password, and was vandalizing, but looking at the deletion list that seems unlikely. Looks like AEvar's decided he's upset at Wikipedia and wants to remove traces of his association - we've certainly seen other people do that before. Noel (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, any work that a user (legally) contributes to Wikipedia is once and forever licensed under the GFDL; removing it is now no longer legally possible to force through. You can't rescind the GFDL.
    James F. (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    In case this happens again, is there any way to have a time delay on the deletion of images, so that whilst they are instantly hidden from normal users an admin can restore them for (say) 24 hours afterwards, after which they are automatically actually deleted? Proteus (Talk) 19:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Or, alternatively, make deleting images wholly wiki-like (in as much as deleting anything is wiki-like) and keeping hold of them indefinitely, excepting purging...
    James F. (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    From User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, it appears that Ævar deleted the images because he wasn't satisfied with the quality. Should have gone through IFD first of course. IMO many of the images are sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes, and should not be deleted. I undeleted these images: Image:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (Scaffold - 02).jpeg, Image:Xchat.png, Image:TCA Himalayan cat - front.jpeg, Image:TCA Himalayan cat - side.jpeg, Image:Solar Eclipse in Iceland - Staring at the sun.jpeg, Image:Pier.jpeg, Image:Lillebælt in the Twilight - Denmark - 03.jpeg, Image:Lillebælt - Denmark.jpeg, and Image:Church in Kolding - Denmark.jpeg. Please let me know if any other images were used in articles. Ævar, feel free to list them on IFD. Rhobite 20:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

    Speedy deleting unused images you uploaded yourself is fine, but the images which were used in articles should have gone through ifd. And I don't understand why he deleted Image:Solar Eclipse in Iceland - Staring at the sun.jpeg or Image:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (Scaffold - 02).jpeg, both of which are very nice images. Thue | talk 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the many other deletions, including of his comments and of various user pages, including his own, his claim that he deleted these images because they were "low quality" seems dubious. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know whether anyone else has mentioned this, but it may be possible to recover some of the lost images from Google cache or mirrors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reuploaded about half of the images he deleted, but not some of the more recent ones. Rhobite apparently has access to backups of some more recently uploaded images, though, judging by some of the ones they restored. If they could get the ones I missed, that would be great. ✏ OvenFresh² 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sam Spade

    I've just left a message on his Talk page after a complaint from User:FeloniousMonk. My guess is that it will do no good; could someone with influence with him advise him to behave more sensibly? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    He immediately deleted my message of course, and left me this [2], so my appeal to others becomes more urgent. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I would appreciate not being harassed by popularity contest winning nube admins who have no knowledge of policy, nor shame for their violations of it. It what way does any of this foolishness qualify as an "incident"? Sam Spade 23:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the template was removed, i will continue to advise a review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader by those who are ignorant of it. Sam Spade 23:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Spade, if you had won the ArbCom election you would have won a "popularity contest". So I don't see how Wikipedia elections being popularity contests is relevant. In addition, I don't recognize the term "nube". Perhaps you meant "newbie"? Since you registered as a member of Inquiry, I encourage you to not use such brash generalizations like describing Mel Etitis as someone "who has no knowledge of policy, nor shame for their violations of it." In fact, I would expect any member of Inquiry to behave responsibly and calmly without describing these situations as "foolishness", even if that description may be accurate. Moreover, you should cite sources to aid your defense as Inquiry researchers must do for Wikipedia articles. Adraeus 01:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an incident not just because you've once again violated WP:Civility by publicly calling me a bastard (and El C as well), [3] but because you've deleted every warning to desist without acknowlegement or any indication that you do not intend to carry on: [4] [5] [6] and you've gone on to insult an admin as a "popularity contest winning nube admin." I hope your pizzas are not as tepid and bland as the insults you deliver.
    FeloniousMonk 23:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I (very briefly) was engaging in a collegial polemic on FM's talk page, I certainly insulted no one, nor was any offence directed against Ungtss — s/he certainly did not give an indication of being offended. In fact, as per represnenting his/her worldview, I actually found Ungtss' responses to have been quite eloquent (that I disagree with them strongly, is besides the point). Significantly, it is rather easy to observe that at no point was User:Sam Spade involved in this pronouncedly calm discussion. El_C 23:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Questionable Username

    While looking at the history of Gallery of national flags and I came upon this user: User:Mloester. Personally, this name sounds very close to molester, with a letter in the wrong spot. I was wondering what do you think about it. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Harmless.Geni 01:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The truth about hephaestos

    I've permablocked this account for obvious reasons, but I figure I should note that it alleges that Hephaestos and Mike Garcia are the same user. Since Mike uses AOL there's no real way to track that, but it might be worth seeing if The truth about hephaestos is a sock of someone too. Or not. Whatev. Snowspinner 05:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

    Sigh. I guess I once again have to complain and get abused for it. But I don't see how this is valid. A) The user had made a few good edits to articles. B) We don't know if the user was telling the truth or being a troll. C) Even if the user was a troll, there's no policy allowing an admin to block that user outright. The only thing I can think is that maybe it qualifies as a personal attack. But it's an allegation; if it's true, it couldn't be a personal attack, I wouldn't think. Everyking 05:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=13870721"