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 Nickptar (talk | contribs) at 21:46, 21 October 2005 (→Sleeper Trolls & Sockpuppets: irreversible actions). 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



    User:JimmyCrackedCorn and sockpuppets = Girls Aloud vandal?

    Essjay just blocked ExpertTag_-_by_JimmyCrackedCorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose contributions consist solely of adding the {{expert}} tag to several minor celebrity pages, including Girls Aloud. Suspected sockpuppets of JimmyCrackedCorn include User:DEastman, User:DKorn, User:John Henry, Long John Silver and others (see Talk:Ray Nagin). FYI. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is doing some strange edits using multiple accounts (so far I've seen JimmyCrackedCorn Complains ON a wikipedia (talk · contribs) and ExpertTag - by JimmyCrackedCorn (talk · contribs)). Looks like he's annoyed that his pet POV fork (Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy) was deleted. --cesarb 23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm too slow. --cesarb 23:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I killed off the JimmyCrackedCorn Complains ON a wikipedia vandal, but he's shown he doesn't intend to leave just yet. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 00:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I opened a RFC on this guy under his latest nym 'John Henry' Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Henry. He seems to be somewhat ticked off about that. --Gorgonzilla 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like now we've got User:TotallyDisputed- JimmyCrackedCorn adds the tag and User:TotallyDisputed. Except I suspect he was blocked before he could "add the tag." · Katefan0(scribble) 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Age Limits for Admins?

    I think that we should have an age limit for administrators. Perhaps one of 18 -- with absolutely no exeptions. Some might think that an admin can do his job just as well being under 18, but look at it this way: We dont let people drive who are under a certain age, and I'm sure there are plenty of under-16 year olds proficient enough to drive a car just fine.

    Unless we set an age limit for those entrusted to run this site, Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as a source for verifiable, reliable information. It will always be thought of as a school-yard clique -- as it is now.Shelburne Kismaayo 02:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    1) you are a little late 2)there is no way you are going to be able to confirm ages 3)We know that sub 18 admins can do a perfectly good job 4)admins don't really run the site. Individual admins really don't run the site 5)we judge every admin so if lack of maturity is a problem they will not make it to adminship. 6)adminship is no big deal 7)you are far less likely to kill people in the role of a wiki admin than driving a car.Geni 03:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. →Raul654 03:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Shelburne, let me tell you one thing right now. I find your statement insulting, baseless, and ill-informed. And my college professors take Wikipedia rather seriously; in fact, they're intrigued by the fact that I'm a Wikipedia admin. They all tell me "we LOVE Wikipedia! It's one of the first places I look". So... do you have a purpose for this rant besides crying because the RFC against Redwolf isn't doing you any justice? Linuxbeak | Talk 03:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Linuxbeak, he might be a trouble user, but you're making his case for him. Geni's reply was reasonable, yours lookslike the sort of rant I'd expect from... well Shelburne (and his related socks). Every critical message does not demand a harsh reply, take a look at the other replies here... --Gmaxwell 23:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The main reason the real world defines thresholds in terms of arbitrary ages is that society can not really afford the time and expense to certify whether or not any given individual has the skills and maturity to deal with situations like driving, smoking, drinking, voting, etc. So as a society we set some arbitrary boundaries and hope that most of the people that have reached that age are qualified for the rights and responsibilities being bestowed upon them. Frankly, it is fairly crappy system as it, since there are inevitably some "kids" that are substantially more trustworthy than some "adults". Unlike society at large, Wikipedia does take the time and effort to judge the qualifications and attributes of each candidate. In the process we (hopefully) weed out the immature candidates of all ages through a process of peer evaluation that is certainly more effective than any arbitrary age barrier would be. Dragons flight 03:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the main differences between wikipedia and real life is that age matters much less here, though IMO the significant, active admins tend to be adults. I would do like (apparently) the Roman senators did and make the age bar 42 but, as Geni says, we never ask admins or anyone else to give personal information away, and that is as it should be. Trying to changer that would be major policy change anyway. I believe ione of the bureaucrats (who officially appoint the admins) is 13, and there is perhaps something commendable in giving such responsibilities to young people, SqueakBox 03:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently noticed, he turned 14. Dragons flight 03:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't this thread be somewhere else? I had thought I was on the Rfa talk page, SqueakBox 03:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I think an age limit of 18 is a fine idea. Then we could get rid of all the corrupt administrators that are older than 18. --Zephram Stark 03:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    There are many, more important reasons why Wikipedia will or won't be taken seriously by whoever. I seriously doubt that an age limit for admins is one of them and I doubt that it would make any difference in public perceptions of this site. Gamaliel 03:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this should be enforced by consensus. If someone's under a certain age and you want to oppose on those grounds, feel free to do so. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 03:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think not discriminating based on age should be enforced by consensus. The only argument for RFAs being restricted by age is if someone was being immature and not respecting wiki principles- in such a case discriminating on age is pointless, since examples would abound; futhermore, this would catch a lot of innocent users in the same net, or force them to lie/withold data. Considerations on age is a bad idea. --Maru (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with Maru - if someone were to discriminate on the basis of age, I would hope a b'crat would disregard it as spurious - much like discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, sexual orientation... Guettarda 04:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I misphrased what I was trying to say. What I meant to say is that, regardless of how any indidvidual feels about it (I very strongly opposed it myself, but I may be biased being 19 myself,) there's no need for such a rule or lack thereof; if one feels that it's a good reason for a user not to be made an admin, they can oppose any RFA on those grounds. There's no need for concrete qualifications for admins, period. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 04:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Shelburne Kismaayo has proved to be a sockpuppet of a banned user (See below). Do not feed the trolls. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 05:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, trolls aside, this is quite a narrow-minded idea. I know twelve-year olds that are more mature than so-called "adults". Maturity is not determined by age, period. Besides the policy being unenforceable, it is simply a bad idea. Titoxd(?!?) 05:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And to whoever said our best admins are old: Refer to My Teenage Wikipedians essay. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 05:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be easier to refer to it if the link actually worked. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    hey, some of our admins may be young; that doesn't automatically mean that they are the people writing our articles on field theory, ancient history and literary criticism. So I don't see how our content should be taken an less seriously if our vandals are being blocked by youngsters. If we have a problem with credibility, it is not with the admin population, but with the kook/wierdo population among our editors, often sporting grey beards. If anything, the limit could be suggested for the arbcom; I would be uncomfortable with having involved content disputes judged by 14-year-olds. I have no problem with 14-year-olds valiantly protecting our content. 83.77.208.46 07:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Age limits for admins are an incredibly stupid idea. Who's to say people under 18 can't be taken seriously? I myself nominated a 15-year-old for an admin, and the request succeeded. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What a silly idea. The necessary social and technical skills to be an admin are not much different to those needed to be, e.g., a message board moderator, and plenty of teenagers are quite able to discharge that duty competently. We have plenty of very good Wiki admins who are teenagers. You have posited a solution in search of a problem. - David Gerard 11:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC) (age 38)[reply]
    For the record, regardless of any trolling by originator of discussion, no age limits under any circumstances. MONGO 10:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (age: older than David Gerard)[reply]
    READ THIS
    BEFORE YOU ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION, scroll down and read the part about the originator of this thread "Shelburne Kismaayo" being a sockpuppet (now blocked) of a banned user. There's not much point in adding yet another indignant statement about what a loopy idea this is. Don't feed the troll. -- Curps 14:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Rainbowwarrior1977, Wiki brah, & Shelburne Kismaayo

    I have blocked Wiki brah & Shelburne Kismaayo indefinitely as socks of Rainbowwarrior1977. This comes as the result of a sockcheck performed by brion that determined that that there was evidence that all three are using the same ISP and thier IP activity indicates they are likely the same user. I brought this to the attention of mindspillage and Kelly Martin via IRC and was instructed on thier authority as arbitrators to enforce the recent ArbCom ban of Rainbowwarrior1977 by blocking these two sockpuppets. I was further instructed to report my actions, and the events leading to them, here. -- Essjay · Talk 04:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Check the WikiEN-l archives for a thread by me with the subject 'The Trollslayer's Guide to the Wiki'. I can't link you now as the archives aren't in yet... but they're coming. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 04:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    May we consider this to be a community ban then? Linuxbeak | Talk 04:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. The three of them have all been a burdon to the community and have caused a lot of raised temperatures, and now it's safe to say Rainbowwarrior1977 et. al, are banned by the wikipedia community. HIP HIP! Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 05:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Though at the same time look at [1]. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 05:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't call it a community ban because we haven't gotten the community's input on it. If it's going to be a community ban we'd need a big outpouring of overwhelming sentiment in favor of banning. But if it's justified as enforcing an ArbCom ruling, just call it that and that will suffice. Everyking 07:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's going to be a community ban we'd need a big outpouring of overwhelming sentiment in favor of banning. - Really? Hrm, that's interesting, because when Plautus was "banned by the community" for being a complete and total prick, there was just such an outpouring, and yet you were arguing that that wasn't suffecient. →Raul654 07:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we can call it a community ban until someone is against the ban. Notice MARMOT and JarlaxleArtemis are at banned users, yet we haven't asked the community. We'll leave them banned UNTIL SOMEONE SAYS THEY SHOULDN'T BE BANNED. Yay obnoxious caps. RW1977, et al. are banned by the community. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 07:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Call it what you like. While it seems just a little premature, it's a reasonable action to take in the circumstances. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this qualifies as a community ban. Rainbowwarrior1977 is all but banned by ArbCom (the ban has passed ArbCom, but the case hasn't officially closed yet so the ban is not yet in force). I privately recommended a one week block pending the closure of the case, with notice to WP:AN, with the assumption that we'd close the case within a week and implement the one year ban in the ruling at that time. Essjay instead elected to block indefinitely, a choice I'm not entirely thrilled with but which I'm not going to make a stink over. (In my opinion, y'all are using longer-than-policy blocks too much these days.) This user is currently blocked by the community, and will (presumably) soon be banned by ArbCom. Kelly Martin 20:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I misunderstood the advice I received; I had already blocked indefinately by the time I saw the comment about a week-long block (and for the record, I asked for a non-involved party to issue the blocks and was told it would be fine for me to do it, there was no need for a neutral party). It was my understanding that once the vote had passed (and it did, unanimously) the decision was in force, and that when a user is banned, any sockpuppet should be indef blocked immediately. As it stands, I am doing nothing further on the matter until the Arb Com decides what to do. I've had more than my share of stress over this one. -- Essjay · Talk 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Epping Boys High School block

    From AIV we're in the process of blocking several IPs, and I'm considering the range (203.166.96.224/27 for those that are interested). Several admins are involved, but there may be some collateral damage. Someone getting in touch with the school might not be a bad idea. Wikibofh 05:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh good. Banning a school without even contacting them is completely the wrong way round. Secretlondon 05:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to see if I could find a contact easily on their website, no luck. If they were the only ones to be affected a short term block while you try to contact them seems perfectly appropriate to me. As it stands however, that doesn't seem like a good idea in this case. IMO, of course. Wikibofh 01:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This the New South Wales school's? They've been a problem since day one and if weren't for the ISP I would support a full block until 1 January 3000, however because of the ISP that isn't feasible. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 01:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Robchurch

    Being an Admin seems to have gone to his head. Perhaps it's not wise to give such power to one so young. After all Power corrupts etc.--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Irate! Blocked - David Gerard 14:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh gosh, I welcomed an Irate sock! I feel so ashamed...--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't be ashamed - you assumed good faith. Alphax τεχ 23:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to know no-one took it seriously. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 00:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:211.245.243.189 and User:Mirmo!

    (Also posted to Vandalism in Progress)

    Not-quite-newbie originally drew my attention by posting nonexistent or obscure pseudo-abbrevs to disambig pages. Appears to be same user as Mirmo!. Overall problem with user behaviour (see talk page for details) is exacerbated by fact he/she/it does not respond to questions/warnings on talk page, so it's hard to tell if they've read and/or are ignoring them. Latest problem is AfD tag removal; they have previously been warned that tag removal is vandalism. Whilst I consider this user's behaviour more annoying than malevolant, they're unwilling to resolve disputes through the normal channels, so I'm not sure what else can be done. Fourohfour 17:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    General notice re: Wright Amendment

    Be advised that two newsjournals [2] [3] have noticed the edit war on this article. Expect additional external and media attention to be paid to it for the next several days. Kelly Martin 21:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    You know you've reached the big time when the Associated Press is writing about your edit wars. Geez. Dragons flight 22:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    71.112.0.134's contribs

    User:71.112.0.134 has been writing misleading edit summaries, yet the edits seem to be useful. What do I do? Titoxd(?!?) 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism from anon claiming to be a bureaucrat

    Hello wikipedians, I am logged out. I logged out in order to criticize a friend of mine. Adam Bishop can be seen here at the block log 00:34, 18 October 2005, Adam Bishop blocked 71.112.0.134 (infinite) (contribs) (wheels vandal)

    He blocked a non-proxy IP indefinitely. And the reason is wheels vandal. IP's can not move pages! Looking at Special:Contributions/71.112.0.134 you'll see every edit by this guy has an edit summary that scares RC Patrollers, but if you look at the diffs you'll see he's actually been helping out the wiki. This is a lapse of judgement on the Latin speakers part. 207.200.116.5 00:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ooh trolling - what fun. Secretlondon 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he's a troll, but that doesn't make it okay to block an IP indefinitely, especially one that's never been warned, and especially when every contributions has been legit. Warn him to not be an ass with his edit summaries then. 207.200.116.5 00:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned and shortened to 24 hours. A block is clearly appropriate in this case (the behavior is highly disruptive), but indefinitely blocking an IP that may be dynamic is never appropriate. ~~ N (t/c) 00:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A block isn't neccesary at all. What happened to warning people? I remember back in 04, vandals may have been rarer, but at least we warned them. Some may have actually gone straight :-/ 207.200.116.5 00:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summaries he used clearly showed that he was no newcomer to wikipedia and he used them in bad intent. I'm all for warning newcommers, but here a block was totally apropriate. Now leave it. Shanes 01:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous, you guys probably wouldn't want a new enemy to the wiki =-/ 207.200.116.5 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I could be a bit big-headed now, but I'll give you a hint as to who I am: I am one of the 21 bureaucrats of Wikipedia, and I am a contact of Jimbo's (I took a walk with him at one of the meetups). In fact I remember Larry Sanger quite well. Yet the destructiveness exhibited by some admins here is enough to get people to start hating the entire project, which is never good for the wiki as a whole. 207.200.116.5 01:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering about this, and I didn't know how to warn him. Maybe the 24 hour block is inappropriate, I suggest 15 minutes at most, and a message asking why he's writing edit summaries that are almost certain to result in blocks. Titoxd(?!?) 01:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick, summon the deflation-mobile before this one pops! silsor 01:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm accouding to User list we have 22 bureaucrats.Geni 01:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're a bureaucrat, which I doubt, you should know better than to vandalize. If you are, and would like, you can email me at windrunner at gmail dot com pointing to an article you will edit logged in, before you do so, and I will note here that you are indeed a bureaucrat without giving your name. However I do not expect this to happen.. Pakaran 01:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be complete nonsense. None of our bureaucrats is so cowardly as to log out before voicing a very mild criticism of another user, and in any case all the bureaucrats are also administrators and are capable of reversing the block themselves. You'll have much more success in causing a fuss (which is your intent, correct?) if your lies are not embarrassingly obvious. — Dan | Talk 01:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    While I agree with rdsmith (and really its more silly then causing a fuss), this is a bit distracting to the topic at hand... I said on the user's talk page that if there was an apology I'd unblock and I will in while. If the user continues the nonsense I will re-block. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I know what's going on here, but I ain't tellin'. It looks like an inside job to me, something that was carried out in order to test the problem-solving skills of Wiki-admins. I remember something similar to this occuring not too long ago. -Alexander 007 01:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    well you could argue that most problems go away if you block them often enough.Geni 02:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, regardless the user is unblocked now. Just a note to other admins that the user has been warned that it will be reblocked if it continues with the edit summary nonsense. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw a page being moved to "...on wheels" on Recent Changes as I was heading out the door, and reflexively blocked the IP. If I may be allowed to post from IRC:

    • [20:34] <AdamBishop> (diff) (hist) . . User:Kelly Martin; 20:34 . . 71.112.0.134 (Talk | block) (User:Kelly Martin moved to User:Kelly Martin on wheels!)
    • [20:35] <AdamBishop> I blocked that guy but you can all have fun reverting
    • [20:35] <AdamBishop> I have to go to work

    I could have investigated further I suppose, but whenever there is an apparent Wheels vandal it is best to block first and ask questions later. So the lesson here is, don't do that, and you won't get blocked. Adam Bishop 05:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess the confusion stemmed from the fact that there was no page move, and indeed the user wasn't even logged in. The reason why you'd think otherwise is obvious. I think it's right that the user was unblocked, but I can't feel too sorry for him... don't stick your hand in the mouse trap to find out if it only catches mice. --Gmaxwell 05:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't you notice it was an IP and so shouldn't be indef-blocked at all? ~~ N (t/c) 14:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheesh, I'm changing the heading of this to something more... descriptive and appropriate right now. I guess Adam doesn't care, since he left it, but it offends me. Bishonen | talk 12:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    sheesh. what has "remebering Larry Sanger" and "having taken a walk with Jimbo" got to do with anything? Why would a bureaucrat log out to criticize Adam? And why would he base his criticism on the 'good old days' when there was leisure to appeal to the conscience of each vandal? Has he taken a walk with Willy? If you could take the time to edify each vandal with a personalized sermon back in 2002 -- good for you, but these days are gone. dab 15:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:JackSarfatti

    Is JackSarfatti (talk · contribs) still under a block for making legal threats? If so, he's still editing as (definitely) 71.139.97.67 (talk · contribs) (see this this series of edits, where he uses the first person in talking about Sarfatti), and (probably) as UFO Black Ops (talk · contribs) (same style, and even the same malformed sig). --Calton | Talk 07:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JackSarfatti has agreed to abide by WP:NPA, WP:NLT, and WP:NPOV, and to strike out his personal attacks on talk pages. DES was the primary target of JackSarfatti's recent broadsides, and JackSarfatti's editing privileges were restored with DES' approval. User:JackSarfatti is now on a very short leash with respect to personal attacks and any other violations of Wikipedia policy. DES has been extraordinarily gracious, but I won't let his good nature be taken advantage of.

    I will give Jack one warning about the use of sockpuppets, and remind him that he is to be on his best behaviour. Ed Poor is also keeping an eye on Jack; without Ed's close monitoring of the situation I doubt we would have given Jack a second chance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    About UFO Black Ops (talk · contribs)—I'm not sure that the account is User:JackSarfatti. Unlike the anon, this account seems totally consistent at using the second person to refer to Jack Sarfatti. It might just be someone who shares Jack's...unique...worldview. Ed Poor has lifted the block there; we'll keep an eye on it. If it was a sock, it will stop editing now that JackSarfatti is unblocked. If it's not a sock...it will appreciate the unblocking. (Should User:JackSarfatti be blocked again, I'll watch potential socks closely.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect it was a sock, [this] convinced me (it's rather strange to edit headers on someone else's talk page, and Jack frequently changes the headers on his talk page). The timing was suspecious too (he popped up right after the blocks of a number of anon IPs Jack was using to avoid his block got immediately blocked on editing). Anyway, it isn't all that important, meatpuppets aren't allowed either. --fvw* 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Right, we've tried that. Can we block him again now? --fvw* 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    IgnoreAllRules

    IgnoreAllRules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FYI. encephalon 07:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The account was only used for vandalism, with taunting edit summaries. I blocked it indefinitely. --MarkSweep✍ 09:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is of interest, particularly given the debates it "participated" in - David Gerard 10:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was wondering about that too. One edit stopped me short because I thought the sock had slipped up and edited under another name, but it seems it just moved an earlier comment from elsewhere. It's obviously someone quite familiar with WP and some of the recent debates. I've cleaned up after it (and I believe Aaron picked off some too). PS. Thanks for the block, Mark. encephalon 13:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron Brenneman shares a proxy for a large organisation with IgnoreAllRules, with those two as the only users on it, and IgnoreAllRules has a fondness for the same pages. When I asked User:Aaron Brenneman directly if he was IgnoreAllRules, yes or no, he refused to answer, instead becoming aggressive and pseudo-legalistic (see User talk:David Gerard#IgnoreAllRules. What jolly fun - David Gerard 08:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    NTL fun

    Mostly, NTL users are showing up as using their actual IP, which is good. But a few have still been showing up using the proxy. So if you see weirdness from apparently UK editors who may be on NTL, particularly MARMOT-like activity, please let me know and I'll check - David Gerard 08:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd that, any idea what could be triggering the lack of forwarded-for headers? If it's really just MARMOT we could block the proxy IPs as MARMOT should be the only one appearing to come from them, but if there are more, it requires some more investigation. Could any devs give some more information here? Are there still legitimate reqeusts from the NTL proxies coming in without XFF header? Do we discard XFF headers whose IP is not in what is thought to be NTL's range? --fvw* 16:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained on [4], some NTL proxies use a Client-IP header instead of a XFF header. To make things even more interesting, some of the proxies send the IP address reversed on the Client-IP header. --cesarb 19:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    HTMLplusTIME

    I searched and read an article subject HTML+TIME time this morning. It appeared to be an article written by Microsoft and a link to Microsoft was given. Later, also today, I returned to the article but this time it had been deleted. In the delete log I was able to read "08:10, 18 October 2005 The Anome deleted "HTMLplusTIME" (speedy deleting as blatant copyvio from http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/behaviors/time.asp)".

    The article is in my opinion a good guidance and information for those who are keen on learning and practising the HTML+TIME syntax, originally engineered by Microsoft teams. I do recommend that the article will be undeleted.

    As it is understood that a copyright violation seems to be involved with the article as it was inserted I suggest a heading to be added to the article giving no doubts whatsoever that it is/was an original Microsoft text (if that is the case).

    Sincerely Anders Lindesvärd, Sweden Date: 18 Oct 2005 / <email address removed>

    And what if the text is made as a quotation with reference to the source (in case the text evidently was a copy of an MS text)? Anders Lindesvärd

    If you only use part of the text (generally a pretty small part) it can be considered fair use and copyright concern would be limited. You can't use the whole thing. The best idea, IMO, would be to write an article from scratch and link to the Microsoft article as a reference. android79 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have access to the article anymore as it is deleted, and what I do recall from reading the article was that it was very short indeed when comparing to the really huge article on MSN covering the subject. Writing about the particular subject must be in exact and well disposed terms and in my opinion MSN is undoubtedly the best source of correct information. There was, however, an interesting link to a sample, which now is gone. I added today another link to a very good sample presentation.

    I am considering if I myself shall insert an article about the subject. But to be very precise in the subject I trust it has to be built on quotations from MSN original texts in order to avoid misinterpretations of technical details in the subject. Would such an initiative be supported?81.229.108.199 19:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd[reply]

    Sure. Of couse if Microsoft agreed to relase the articel under the GFDL we could use it. But I very much doubt that. I'll put a copy in your userspace for you to work from. DES (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that's a good precedent, as it's a copyvio in userspace too. --fvw* 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I am considering that it is simply a mirror of the microsoft site, being used as a source to build a proper article which cites the microsoft text. Surely that is a form of fairuse, like goign to a library and makign a photocopy of a journal article for reference in writing a paper that cites it.
    I have temporarily undeleted this, and it is now at User:DESiegel/HTMLplusTIME. (I would have put it in Anders Lindesvärd's user space if that user were loged in and had an ID). Please let me know when you are done with it. If I don't hear in a while I will just blank it or delete the copy in my userspace. If any othe admin thinks this is out of line, i am willing to discuss the matter. DES (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Sir. I have now copied and stored the article that was deleted. Yes it is a copy partly of the Microsoft HTML+TIME article.--81.229.108.199 20:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd[reply]

    If the article's online and freely accessible, why make a copy on wikipedia? (I may have missed some of the discussion leading up to this, sorry about that). --fvw* 19:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    You are, IMHO, hitting the head of the issue here. I have been pratising the HTML+TIME for many years now. In several USENET newsgroups it has been obvious that folks interested in the wonderful HTML+TIME syntax get mixed up and confused when visiting and reading the huge MSN article with many pages. My idea is to quote the startup part from Microsoft, with linking of course, and under External Links give linking to what I have during the years found to very well made sample presentations. Microsoft does not link to very good samples and those are what new practitioners are indeed missing. Wikipedia will be useful in this sense.--81.229.108.199 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd[reply]

    Ooops! That was a tricky one. Would the GFDL possibly be mentioned in any of all the Microsoft copyright notices? Some scouting to do. Thank you, but I have to read all about what it takes from me to insert an article on Wikipedia. First time for me.--81.229.108.199 19:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd[reply]

    You might want to consider registering for a free account and logging in. That will make it much easier for other users to communicate with you, for one thing. DES (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Will certainly consider that. Thank you Sir. Have to close now. Will study how to make article inserts on Wikipedia. Will be fun. Bye, bye for now and thanks for your kind assistance.--81.229.108.199 20:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd[reply]

    I have edited and saved a new, most comprehensive, article with external linking on the subject HTML+TIME. The title is still HTMLplusTIME because I found it not possible to edit the title to visually the more correct HTML+TIME. Thank you. --A.Lindesvard 09:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dick Nob

    Dick Nob's user page appears to admit that he is a sockpuppet of Son of Paddy's Ego (as he also claims on his edits of the Chester page earlier today). Since Paddy was blocked yesterday, perhaps this is not a coincidence. --RFBailey 17:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikibofh 18:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Woodroffe Avenue

    • This article was nominated for deletion on 19 September 2005 by Aranda56.
    • During the discussion, Earl Andrew left an unsigned comment stating "Keep. Delete nominator."[5]. User then continued to participate in the debate, leaving multiple comments after Deletion votes.
    • Katefan0 closed the debate as Delete on 29 September 2005, and deleted the article[6].
    • On 30 September 2005, Earl Andrew restored the deleted page. [7].
    • RHaworth re-deleted the article under CSD G4: "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy". [8].
    • Earl Andrew restored the page again on 16 October 2005. [9].
    • Page listed on Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Woodroffe_Avenue on 17 October 2005 by maclean25.
    • Page was re-listed for CSD by DESiegel on 18 October 2005 [10].
    • Evilphoenix removed the CSD tag while researching the issue[11], and made a notation on the original AfD page, reversing the original AfD decision, interpreting the original voting as 15 for deletion and 7 for keep, giving 68 per cent in favor of deletion, which in Evilphoenix's opinion did not constitute a strong enough consensus for deletion [12].
    • Upon further research, Evilphoenix discovered the current VfU, and reversed himself on the original Afd, and re-deleted the article, pending outcome of the VfU.

    This evidence was prepared by me. I feel that Earl Andrew, as a party to the deletion discussion, should not have repeatedly undeleted the page. I have re-deleted and protected the page, pending the outcome of the VfU discussion. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for bringing all the above out. I agree with your point about repeated undeletion by an involved party. Also, while you may not agree, many people feel that anything at or over 2/1 (66.6%) for delete is a valid delete result on AfD, so I don't think that 15/7 justifies overriding a close even in the absence of an ongoing VfU discussion. DES (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earl Andrew should be roundly condemned for partisanly delete-warring, and for delete-warring at all. Act your edit-count, not your shoe size. If you can't act in either way, then have the good grace not to act. As for Evilphoenix deciding it's ok to summarily reverse an AfD decision, he should study whether or not there was the possibility of discussion with the deleting admin before doing so. However, I'm glad he's joined the VfU debate rather than playing with buttons; it's a far more becoming mode of self-conduct. -Splashtalk 20:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page was substantially changed by User:SimonP during the debate, and I feel that it is only fair that it should be put up for VfD again with the new page. The page should never have been deleted in the first place, as there are many other less notable (but still derserving) road articles out there. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was the first time I had encountered an AfD closing that I felt should be re-considered. Normally I don't worry about how other admins close AfD's, I was only evaluating it having visited it from the re-created article, and was trying to decide whether to leave the article or re-delete it. Had I not discovered the VfU, I would have let the article stand, and contacted Katefan0 to discuss the deletion, but when the evidence showed that the re-creator was also party to the debate, and there was a VfU in progress, I didn't want to invalidate the ongoing VfU. In the future, I will take your advice and contact the closing admin before reversing any decisions, should I feel that to be neccessary, however I generally dislike the idea of reversing another admin's actions. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt there was no consensus to delete it. I know I was a party to the discussion, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to do something drastic to shed some light on a topic. Anyways, when the article was originaly put up for AfD, I felt there was not enough information to really portray to validity of the article. However, during debate it was expanded, and I feel comfortable that the validity of the article was reached during that time, and that it was probably unfairly deleted. At least, put it up for AfD again. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 21:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case you should have taken it to VfU. That's what its there for. You should not act unilaterally when you are involved. That is disrespectful of everyone else who is following the process. - Tεxτurε 21:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely what I was going to say.--Scimitar parley 21:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good work, Evilphoenix. You made every action appropriately. - Tεxτurε 21:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wholeheartedly concur with Texture and Scimitar above. If any admin action turns out to be disputed by any other admin, the proper response is to talk it out and/or get a third-party opinion, not to revert war. For deletion-related matters, VFU/DR is the perfect place for that. Radiant_>|< 21:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      or failing that, in the event of further disagreement and admin action warring, don't worry... you can always unblock yourself. --Gmaxwell 22:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a general rule of thumb, an admin should not close an AFD, determine consensus, or most importantly revert another admin's judgement in any discussion in which he or she has been personally involved in because of POV concerns. Unfortunately, I do not see that written down as official policy (unless somebody else knows where it is). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, are you talking in generalities? Because I certainly was never involved in this article or related AFD up until the point that I closed it, and would hate for someone to read your comments and come away with the mistaken impression that I was, when nothing could be further from the truth. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a general rule of thumb. And I was specifically addressing Earl Andrew, not you Katefan0. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, any admin who is actively involved in any type of discussion has absolutely no business in processing it, and should not even think about reverting its final judgement without another discussion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That would make sense, perhaps, if an admin had some high obligation to fairly decide which side won.. But thats not the case, they are supposted to take all the points and views, and apply their judgement in a way which best furthers the community interest. It would be pretty odd if we only allowed people who didn't trust their own judgement enough to express it in public to use their judgement to close AFDs. We don't need to go out of our way to ensure fairness in this process, because the process is transparent and can be undone by other admins. It would be reasonable to advise people to not close issues where they have an obvious emotional attachment, not because I'm worried to much about bias, but because AFD is most importantly a consensus building device (even people who disagree with the action will usually agree to abide by AFD), and the illusion of bias taints that. For the most part people are already doing the right thing, since its just common sense. --Gmaxwell 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you claiming that of the closing admin and the reverting admin that one can be trusted and one cannot? Your argument collapses if applied to both admins in this situation. One of the admins was not involved in the discussion/voting and was the one to close the AfD. The other was involved and passionate enough about his opinion (yes, only an opinion) that he unilaterally decided to undo the decision based on his vote. Why does an admin's vote weight heavier than other people's? - Tεxτurε 15:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was responding to the post above mine in a general sense and not talking about this issue directly. I think it is important that we do not exclude admins from being involved in matters when they made the mistake of expressing their view in public. :) As far as this case, you're right. We have a process and it was followed. No one should have reverted a delete unless they feel confident that an error was made (and 'I don't like the outcome' doesn't really count). If an admin let their involvement in an issue cloud their judgement, thats bad, and thats why we are here discussing it. A single revert isn't so bad, after all, if the revert was made in error it isn't to hard to get someone to revert the revert... but doing it twice? thats an admin-action revert war in my view. --Gmaxwell 13:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I Was Unfairly Blocked

    I was accused of being a sockpuppet, and I am not. I emailed administrators, and was said to be "spamming" them. I dind't then go do anything sneaky, like trying to get into Wikipedia on another computer or something like that. I followed procedure, all to no avail. I was told if I stayed off certain pages, and didn't post there, it would be a sign of "good faith" and I could then be unblocked. I don't see that as fair, either, seeing as I never broke a rule here or attacked anyone. That seems manipulative. My question is, what does one do when faced with a wall of administrative silence? --EKBK 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    EKBK, I offered you what I think was a very reasonable deal. I believe you're a sock puppet (or meat puppet) of Zephram Stark, who's been trolling at Talk:Terrorism for months and who's currently up in front of the arbcom for it. You insist you're not. In order to split the difference between us, I said I'd unblock you if you stay away from Talk:Terrorism until the Zephram issue is resolved. You refuse to do that, even though you've only made 41 edits, and six to the encyclopedia, so it's not as if you're deeply tied to Terrorism and couldn't bear to be parted from it. I was also reminded by another editor to ask you why you claimed to use the term "FISA terrorism," which is one of Zephram's made-up phrases, yet you backed him up, claiming you'd heard it often and used it yourself. Still, I'll repeat my offer to unblock you if you stay away from Talk:Terrorism or any other page Zephram has caused trouble on. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Carbonite has asked anyone considering unblocking to read this thread first. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Carbonite's link calls into question why I would care if SlimVirgin blocks EKBK under the guise of being my sockpuppet. My answer to that is threefold: 1) SlimVirgin has also blocked me because she claimed that I had a sockpuppet. I have never created a sockpuppet. 2) SlimVirgin and Jayjg are using tactics of blocking people and threatening to block people who disagree with them about the "terrorism" article. Together they have blocked over a dozen people. 3) It's just corrupt as hell to block someone who has done nothing wrong. --Zephram Stark 22:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that to ask me to stay off certain pages smacks of Big Brother. I told you that while I have no desire to frequent that page for any particular reason(I said what I wanted to say there), to be barred from using certain pages isn't fair. I also told you that I was compelled to state my opinion. The FISA terrorism thing certainly does not mean I am Zephram Stark, any more than my post on the Flying Spaghetti Monster page means I am a Pastafarian, and the fact that I was perfectly willing to turn on my webcam even further proof I have nothing to hide. You obviously don't like people agreeing with anything he says, all the more reason not to agree to unreasonable requests. I ask to be unblocked because I broke no rules, and the one thing you accused me of is not true. I am not a sock or any other kind of puppet. --EKBK21:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    When I asked EKBK to e-mail me from her regular e-mail address, she said she had no Interact access at home, and could only e-mail from work, hence the hotmail address. So I wonder where she keeps her webcam. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Sockpuppets - "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." It seems to me that, at least until the arbitration against Zephram Stark is concluded, it would be reasonable to avoid the Terrorism article, as SlimVirgin has suggested.--Scimitar parley 21:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The key phrase being "for the purpose of dispute resolution." The quote above is saying that if an administrator thinks that a vote is being swayed by sockpuppets or meatpuppets, that all of the suspected puppets should count as one vote. Expanding that into an excuse to perma-block someone and lock her user page is a sure sign that the administrator is corrupt, especially when the accused person was not involved in any vote. (EKBK contribs) This case is really simple, regardless of how much confusion Carbonite and SlimVirgin want to throw at it. The question is, "Given that it is apparently impossible for someone to prove their innocence of being accused of sockpuppetry, what should be the standard?" Should someone be blocked permanently because an administrator accuses them of being a sockpuppet without any evidence? Exactly how far can an administrator stretch the rules before another administrator will say, "Enough is enough?" --Zephram Stark 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Zephram, you know, the main rule is, "whatever is conductive to a better encyclopedia" (imho this should be in giant letters on any policy page, since it a fortiori includes npov+cite). I am confident many admins will react to blatant injustice, but we are not here to play games of guilt or innocence. It is typically embarassingly easy to tell 'encyclopedists' from 'trolls'. I will certainly tend to bend the rules to unblock users whom I consider prolific writers of well-referenced, highly encyclopedic articles. EKBK was offered a deal, should he stay away from Terrorism. There are 770k articles here, many in a shoddy state. Any serious editor can find no end of productive tasks without hogging a particular article. dab (ᛏ) 06:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd need to feel fairly strongly that there was either an error in judgement somewhere along the line or a good chance that the blocked editor would change their behaviour to unblock someone. I have no feeling whatsoever in regard to EKBK, after having reviewed the evidence. Something fishy is going on; and EKBK seems to have been bordering on trolling in some cases. Hence, although I may not have blocked EKBK, I have no motivation or desire to unblock, and I don't doubt that other sysops feel similarly.--Scimitar parley 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyring

    Is editing as User:203.51.32.244. He's banned (not blocked), so has to be blocked and reverted on sight, right? --Kiand 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting is optional, but in most cases I would. --fvw* 21:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And User:143.238.244.68 --Kiand 21:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That bastard better not be making any spelling fixes! By God, we'll hunt him down for that! Everyking 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he is, but he's also harrassing users, and a ban is a ban - he's not allowed edit the Wikipedia for one year from the day of his last attempt to - which is today, obviously. --Kiand 22:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And User:143.238.244.40. He's all over that netblock tonight. --Kiand 22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems to have let off User_talk:Jtdirl for now, but keep an eye out. Changes his IP address between edits. I reset his block to a year from (yesterday). Rob Church Talk | FAHD 00:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't his block be a year from now?? Updating... Bratschetalk | Esperanza 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked 203.51.25.0/24 for 3 hours. Also been blocking other IPs he gets for 3 hours. He's been hitting Jtdirl's talk page pretty bad. They're all Australian addresses originating from Canberra. Perhaps .nsw.bigpond.net.au should be contacted- that's where most or all of the addresses are originating. Ral315 WS 01:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey guys, thanks for all the work with Skyring. It is really appreciated. Creating 16 sockpuppets in 2 hours to attack 1 page is a hoot. (Attack removed) Anyway, thank folks for all the help and support. It is superb. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

    I've blocked User:143.238.244.181 indefinately as a proven sock puppet of Skyring. As it's the first time I've blocked a user, I'm just noting it here to make sure I've not gone "rogue" ;-).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have made that an indefinite block - IP addresses do change, and if that one is part of some ISP's dynamic address pool, this block will surprise someone eventually. So I've unblocked it. CDC (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    WOW?

    I've just blocked 81.77.194.22 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours because his sole contribution is vandalism related to Willy. Radiant_>|< 21:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone tell me what created that "warning" message on their talk page, and if it needs to stay there? Actually only really care about what created it, if it was auto or manually added. «»Who?¿?meta 23:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to be the result of fancy template editing. Some templates now show warning boxes if displayed in the wrong location (e.g. talk page instead of article) or if not substed. This may not actually fully work yet due to bugs and typoes, feel free to experiment. In this case, no, the warning need not particularly stay. Radiant_>|< 11:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd page

    I just got this meta wiki page saying this wiki does not exist when i went [13]. Strangely it is still the same URL. I got the right page the second time. Some subtle vandalism? Or just a mistake in the wiki technology? It starts Wiki does not exist From Meta, a wiki about Wikimedia

    This wiki does not exist yet. Perhaps you are looking for one of our other projects:

    A meta symbiol had appeared on an earlier tab for anotherr en.wikipedia page, SqueakBox 01:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been an error we've been getting on and off. I've told the devs, we'll see what happens. Ral315 WS 01:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed now?

    Wiki brah

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARedwolf24&diff=25878008&oldid=25872387 Rainbowwarrior1977 explains that he's not Wiki brah, the tone seems sincere enough, I'll trust it for now. But may I remind you all that the sockcheck showed he was... in Florida. So if not anything else, he's up in Florida, not Brazil. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the un-block, but continue to watch Wiki brah in case. Ral315 WS 01:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't put too much credit in where people are from IP address checks. One of my customers owns a large optical plant that covers the Caribbean and parts of South America. In additon to raw TDM transport they also provide internet connectivity. The address space they provide customers is sliced out of their ARIN address blocks. The sort of armchair internet sluthing we use would quite possibly conclude that a person who was actually in Columbia was in Miami. Even reverse DNS lookups can be misleading, for example: for about three years around 2000, Adelphia had customers in south florida reverse resolving to names that would imply that they were located in Pennsylvania because they moved a block and didn't update their zone files. --Gmaxwell 01:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I knew it was easy to make it appear you live in another state (I supposedly live in Virginia...) but I thought country by country would be different. Seems strange that Brazil would possibly translate to Miami though. Now I gotta do some work, I'll check this thread later. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been times when I would be traced to the US (new york I think). AOL again.Geni 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't seem strange to me that Brazil, and all eastern mainland Latin America would route through Miami. Always does from Honduras, including linking to Europe, SqueakBox 02:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a 3RR block

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    See User talk:David Gerard#IgnoreAllRules - David Gerard 08:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Unsure about blocking Tony, did he really revert four times? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    IAR

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    The anon User:148.85.1.102 keeps making the same unsourced and strongly POV change to Disco over and over: [14],[15],[16],[17], 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: [18].

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Yes. That's pretty much exactly what I am saying. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'm not a big fan of generalities. Life is too complicated. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    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 (ᛏ) 11:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [19], [20], including a revert of (Leonig Mig)'s edit[[21]], 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)[reply]

    User:Scottfisher

    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)[reply]

    I left a note on his talk page; if the copyvios continue, please let us know here. android79 12:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "Lying about the provenance of a photo is seriously bad plagiarism for which one can and should be banned" [22]. Dragons flight 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, DF. He's been duly warned. android79 15:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this recent edit and the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett 14:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    User:W**** ** ****s

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

    Blocked for 24 hours just to be safe.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Month long revert war: Yorkshire Terrier

    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)[reply]

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

    Slur removed per page policy

    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)[reply]

    Bad edits

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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" [23] and a measurement modifying a noun ("325-acre tract") takes a hyphen [24]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    even with Skyring banned and all, it does seem pretty daft to roll back edits where anon IPs fix misspellings. Why would anyone do such a thing? 130.60.142.65 08:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Jeff Merkey strikes again

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

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

    User:Rightangel

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing

    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)[reply]

    he emailed me, pointing to [25] -- 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)[reply]
    I think your response is over the top. It takes 2 to edit war. Secretlondon 10:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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/Incidents#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)[reply]

    Uncle G Work Bots blocked?

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

    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)[reply]
    Speaking of not legit, the above question was posed by a WoW sock... android79 19:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Sleeper Trolls & Sockpuppets

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    • 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)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=26132431"