NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) rv anon harassment |
Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) →Unban discussion for User:Drew R. Smith: I'll reply to the troll |
||
Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
**Good question. Positive contributions at another project go a long way to proving reform. [[User:Exxolon|Exxolon]] ([[User talk:Exxolon|talk]]) 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
**Good question. Positive contributions at another project go a long way to proving reform. [[User:Exxolon|Exxolon]] ([[User talk:Exxolon|talk]]) 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
* '''''Nuke This'''''. Drew has been a disruptive user all along, and I rather suspect he's been socking again. Drew is just a troll. Very Involved == Very Knowledgeable, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
* '''''Nuke This'''''. Drew has been a disruptive user all along, and I rather suspect he's been socking again. Drew is just a troll. Very Involved == Very Knowledgeable, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
*: Did the pot just call the kettle black?? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.94.147.169|129.94.147.169]] ([[User talk:129.94.147.169|talk]]) 22:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
*:: You're a troll, too.<sup class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=344688550 diff]</sup> [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Backlog at [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] == |
== Backlog at [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] == |
Revision as of 22:56, 3 August 2010
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Block review: JRHammond
JRHammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was until recently blocked for 55 hours for edit warring; I declined one of his unblock requests. After the block expired, JRHammond made three edits to the talk page of the article he had been warring about: [1], [2], [3]. In reaction to these edits, administrator Wgfinley (talk · contribs) blocked JRHammond for one week, logging the following reason:
- "Personal attacks or harassment: promptly launching into personal attacks right after your ban expires is not a good idea, take another 7 days to contemplete it."
On JRHammond's talk page, Wgfinley expanded on this, noting:
- "(...) [I]mmediately after being unblocked you make a personal attack on me when I just asked you to take it down a notch: (...) Finally, launching into an attack on an admin that's just trying to keep the peace, was not even involved in any of the prior discussions and had nothing to do with you being blocked is a far cry from civil. You have 7 days to cool down now (...)"
After reading JRHammond's unblock request while patrolling CAT:RFU, I believe that Wgfinley erred in making this block. The three edits made by JRHammond after their block expired contain nothing blockable; disagreeing with an administrator is not forbidden and is not a personal attack. Furthermore, Wgfinley as the target of the perceived personal attack should not have blocked JRHammond himself, and "cool-down blocks" are in any case frowned upon. Because Wgfinley disagrees with this assessment (see User talk:JRHammond#One Week Block), I request a wider discussion of this block as recommended by the blocking policy in cases of administrator disagreement. Sandstein 17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Sandstein. Apparently one of the reason for the block was response by JRHammond to the comment I made. Although my opinion about my comment has not changed, I see nothing blockabale in the user's response to my comment. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looked through the edits - nothing that warrants a block, let alone a 7 day one. As a subject of one of the edits Wgfinley should not have blocked in any event, but asked another admin to check the edits and block if they felt that was required. If JRHammond's editing on this article is a long term issue, there are better ways to deal with that - RFC or community sanctioned topic ban for example. Exxolon (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unblocked. I don't see any need to discuss that any further, though further view of Wgfinley's action would be wise. This looks like taking the power of the tools too far into social engineering rather than enforcing policy, and all admins should know never to hand out "cool down" blocks. Fences&Windows 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm reposting what I put on the user's talk page here, simply looking at these three edits and reversing my decision is hardly looking into what has been going on in the edit war on that page.
- His last block was all off 55 hours, during that time he refused to admit he did anything wrong and made no less than 4 unblock requests all of which were turned down. He promptly waded back in with this, he jumps right back into warring with other editors ("as you perfectly well know", "it's absolutely uncontroversial") and then accuses me of making a personal attack on him (WP:NPANPA) when I just asked him to tone it down (before he was blocked by another admin). He's never once admitted he did anything wrong or agreed to try to work more productively which is the centerpiece of unblocking (WP:GAB). The fact that he thanked me somewhere else is irrelevant, the fact that he spent his entire time blocked refusing to accept being blocked and blames others (WP:NOTTHEM) is and the fact he immediately jumped right back is (WP:NAM). By itself his diffs aren't enough to merit having his block extended, they are when you consider the totality of his behavior. I would encourage you to go look at the past several months of Six Days War discussion to see a clear pattern where JRH refuses to play well with others and is constantly POV pushing. If he were to ever show contrition I would consider reducing the block but he doesn't seem to feel he does anything wrong, hence the need for an extension of his block. --WGFinley (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm just trying to get some semblance of peace on an article that has raged in edit war for 3 months, has escalated to various other areas, he's chewed up one person who tried to mediate already and now chewed me. I can trust one of you folks to keep watchful eye on the article now? --WGFinley (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above "If JRHammond's editing on this article is a long term issue, there are better ways to deal with that - RFC or community sanctioned topic ban for example." - take it to RFC (assuming that has not been done) or go to RFAR or ask for a community sanctioned topic/article ban. Exxolon (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is an Palestine-Israel article, it clearly falls in the purview of discretionary sanctions and doesn't require further community review for this specific instance. All users editing have been warned there multiple times about the edit warring and incivility not just by me but by multiple admins and another admin warned him on his talk page again before I blocked him again. Everyone working that article is well aware their conduct can can result in general sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Then ask for uninvolved admin(s) to check and issue a topic ban under Wikipedia:General sanctions if you feel JRH's conduct over the last 3 months warrants it - the block you issued was not covered by them, in fact you specifically said that you would take actions under those criteria if he came back from the block and was disruptive again. Exxolon (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was uninvolved, this is a clear case of administrators who aren't aware of the history there being dragged in to look at one instance. On its face what he did didn't merit a block, it's the totality of his behavior. If you look at his contribution history, the edit history of the article and the pages of disputes there you can get an idea of what is going on and why Arbcom cautioned against reversing admins who have made sanctions without knowing the whole background.
- 2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
- I got one opportunity to respond to this and my block was overturned, I would hardly consider that extensive discussion or consensus-building. He came back with an announcement that he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, accused me of a personal attack on him and jumped right back into vitriol on the talk page immediately after coming off a block. That's why I blocked him, he shows no interest in changing his behavior in a controversial article. --WGFinley (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Wgfinley. This has been going on for weeks. The user has been incessantly edit-warring on a sensitive topic covered by sanctions, and has displayed a combative attitude. His reaction to all three blocks has been to claim he did nothing wrong, and to attack the blocking admin, the admin responding to the unblock request, any admin that doesn't unblock him, anyone he's edit-warred with, etc. I'd call it a persistent refusal to understand how Wikipedia works, and why edit-warring and attacks are frowned upon. Enigmamsg 19:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into the situation too much, though I did read the thread above. It seems to me that situations like these should be handled by using "Arbitration Enforcement: [Block Reason]" as the block reason if the block is indeed meant to handle situations where one editor is acting disruptively in a topic area and discretionary sanctions are being used to try to calm an area down. As Arbitration Enforcement blocks cannot (usually) be overturned without a clear community consensus to do so, clearly indicating that a block was made in pursuit of calming down an area that ArbCom has allowed discretionary sanctions for would make the situation a lot easier to handle. NW (Talk) 20:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was uninvolved, this is a clear case of administrators who aren't aware of the history there being dragged in to look at one instance. On its face what he did didn't merit a block, it's the totality of his behavior. If you look at his contribution history, the edit history of the article and the pages of disputes there you can get an idea of what is going on and why Arbcom cautioned against reversing admins who have made sanctions without knowing the whole background.
- Then ask for uninvolved admin(s) to check and issue a topic ban under Wikipedia:General sanctions if you feel JRH's conduct over the last 3 months warrants it - the block you issued was not covered by them, in fact you specifically said that you would take actions under those criteria if he came back from the block and was disruptive again. Exxolon (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is an Palestine-Israel article, it clearly falls in the purview of discretionary sanctions and doesn't require further community review for this specific instance. All users editing have been warned there multiple times about the edit warring and incivility not just by me but by multiple admins and another admin warned him on his talk page again before I blocked him again. Everyone working that article is well aware their conduct can can result in general sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Block Reinstatement
I believe this block should be reinstated. I made an error not identifying this as a block for actions taken on a WP:GS article but the following is clear:
- He has been warned repeatedly about edit warring on this article [4]
- He has been warned this is a WP:GS article [5] [6]
- All participants on the article have been warned it's a WP:GS article, it's referenced in multiple areas on the talk page
- He responded to another reminder that this is a WP:GS article and to cool down with this: [7] for which I originally blocked him
- This is his third block by three uninvolved administrators for edit warring and WP:CIVIL violations on this article. [8] [9] [10]
- As in previous instances he lashes out against the blocking admin [11] [12] [13] [14], to the point others ask him to stop [15] and makes repeated requests to be unblocked.
- I haven't asked for a sock investigation but this account edits this article, and this article only: Special:Contributions/JRHammond
- His only other involvement is requesting MedCab involvement, the first try blew up Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-07-11/Six-Day_War where he chewed up the first mediator for relatively simple questions (i.e. regarding sources)
Basically I believe there is more than enough evidence here to support the block I made at 7 days under general sanctions. I erred in not identifying this as the primary reason for my block, it was given to him as a reason though [16]. To not do so just shows the others who are edit warring on the article they are free to edit war away and even if blocked they can go for the wheel war and find an admin who will lift the block. It's what he's done every time he was blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- The special rules for arbitration enforcement blocks (WP:AEBLOCK) apply only to blocks made "explicitly or in substance" pursuant to an arbitration decision, so such blocks should always be labeled as AE blocks, e.g., with {{uw-aeblock}}. But in this case, I do not see any grounds for a reinstatement of the block, because the incidents you cite appear to relate to the time before the expiration of his previous 55 h block. After that, he made only the three talk page edits I linked to above, and these three edits are not blockable conduct. Now I've made many AE blocks in this topic area against disruptive editors on both sides of the conflict, and I'm both strongly against leniency with ethno-nationalist POV-pushers as well as against making it too easy to lift blocks by others (which I avoided doing here). But in this case there has been no actual disruption since the expiration of the block and any new block (which may well be a long block) should only occur in case of new disruption, such as edit warring. Besides, your original block rationale focused on the perceived (but, to me, non-existent) personal attack against you, and in such situations it is unbecoming for the attacked administrator to make the block themselves; rather, they should leave any action against the attack (not against other disruption) to other admins. Sandstein 06:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO these actions by User:Wgfinley are very poor Admin actions and presents a case for removal of his tools, the user is nor a regular editor and has only limited edit history. Jan 11, 2006 RFA he has only got five hundred edits since then and has not the experience to use the tools, at least not for blocking anybody, especially anyone he is involved with or at an article he is involved in. note: - I have left him a note on his talkpage asking him as to his position as regards WP:recall. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Submit myself to a process there was no consensus on? The admin policy has been clear, unless somewhere along the line Wikibreaks became unallowed adminiship has never required constant activity and I don't think I'm the first admin to have someone disagree with a block he has made. --WGFinley (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- What actions? As far as I can tell, it's one admin action up for debate here. It seems to me that you're advocating he be desysopped because he made one block you disagree with. That about cover it? Enigmamsg 01:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not asking for anyone to be desopped, actually I asked him if he was open to recall and suggested he voluntarily put down his tools or at least state that he will not block any one he is involved with or on a topic that he is involved in or that he asks the community if they still support his authority to take administrative actions. My request was after reading this and looking at his edit history and the additional fact that he defended and supported his mistaken administrative actions and wanted the action re implemented, this apparent inability to see and accept that he made an error is as big an issue to me as the original mistaken block. I am presently working on formating the questions for wider community discussion as regards admin recall and admin reconfirmation and inactive administrators guidelines. Does anyone have the links to previous related discussions? Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you said actions, as in plural. A post to WP:AN is not an admin action. You said "presents a case for removal of his tools", which I take to mean you want him desysopped because you disagree with a block he made. Most admins are not open to recall, so if you make a post like that, it's taken to mean you want them forcibly desysopped. Enigmamsg 15:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actions, well, the blocking and then the request that it be reinstated. As I said above I am not requesting the forcible removal of anything. I personally think and have pointed out to him that I don't think he should block anyone that he is involved with or involved in the article or editing with, administrators usually understand this anyways. You seem a bit defensive when there is no one under attack, do you think it is not ok to ask Administrators to reconsider their usage of the tools, it is a privilege you know and one which requires continued community support. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. There was one admin action. Anyone can ask for a block to be put in place or reinstated. That's hardly an admin action. You're calling for his tools because he made one admin action you disagree with. "You seem a bit defensive when there is no one under attack" - I read it quite differently, when you're calling for desysopping right off the bat. Enigmamsg 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actions, well, the blocking and then the request that it be reinstated. As I said above I am not requesting the forcible removal of anything. I personally think and have pointed out to him that I don't think he should block anyone that he is involved with or involved in the article or editing with, administrators usually understand this anyways. You seem a bit defensive when there is no one under attack, do you think it is not ok to ask Administrators to reconsider their usage of the tools, it is a privilege you know and one which requires continued community support. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you said actions, as in plural. A post to WP:AN is not an admin action. You said "presents a case for removal of his tools", which I take to mean you want him desysopped because you disagree with a block he made. Most admins are not open to recall, so if you make a post like that, it's taken to mean you want them forcibly desysopped. Enigmamsg 15:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not asking for anyone to be desopped, actually I asked him if he was open to recall and suggested he voluntarily put down his tools or at least state that he will not block any one he is involved with or on a topic that he is involved in or that he asks the community if they still support his authority to take administrative actions. My request was after reading this and looking at his edit history and the additional fact that he defended and supported his mistaken administrative actions and wanted the action re implemented, this apparent inability to see and accept that he made an error is as big an issue to me as the original mistaken block. I am presently working on formating the questions for wider community discussion as regards admin recall and admin reconfirmation and inactive administrators guidelines. Does anyone have the links to previous related discussions? Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Need more admins to weigh in on this issue
I've been aware for some time that User:Daniel Case and myself are both regular reviewers of reports at WP:UAA that don't really see eye to eye on how to interpret the username policy in certain situations, but although we have disagreed a bit in the past it's never really come to a head and manifested itself in and out-and-out disagreement. The case of User:Ericstalin has broken that pattern. Rather than pontificate about it here I'll just give you the facts and ask for any interested party to comment.
- Initial (bot) report on the name and subsequent discussion at UAA :[17]
- My comment's on Daniel's talk page:[18]
- His reply :[19]
The core issue here as I see it as that what is offensive is highly subjective. I'm really not sure how to resolve this, and I considered WP:RFCN, but that is intended to discuss matters with the user themselves if they are refusing to change their name, and discussions at the username policy talk page tend move rather slowly, and I'm really looking for input beyond just the UAA regulars. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you and Daniel need to agree to disagree on this one, and wait and see what the user's reaction is. This is not a clear-cut case; since the tag has been placed on the user's talk page, let's see what the reaction is. If the user agrees with the point and either stops editing (a possibility) or requests a new username, then it will seem Daniel's point of view will prevail. If the user protests, then we have to evaluate the discussion and see which way to go. My own personal opinion is that it wasn't worth slapping a tag over, but on the other hand, it's not worth a whole lot of discussion now that it's been done.
- As to the wider point of "how do we determine once and for all which ones qualify as offensive and must absolutely be tagged?" well, I'm not sure you'll ever get satisfaction on that point. Sorry I can't offer anything there; it's always a bit of a judgment call around here. C'est la vie. Frank | talk 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- A name like "Eric Stalin" should not be considered offensive without further information about the person (does he start out vandalizing, etc.) Apparently, there have been a number of people with the name of Stalin since Joseph Stalin led the USSR. If there is even a hint that the user might end up editing in good faith, then there is no reason to block, just leave them alone. If they start vandalizing, that's not the end of the world, just block them instantly. If they start editing in good faith, then you didn't scare them off. NW (Talk) 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- If I remember rightly Stalin was only added to the username bot blacklist because Runtshit had a habit of using it, and we block Runtshit for vandalism. There's nothing inherently offensive or policy-violating about that name. If he starts calling for millions to be killed, then it would be worth a second look. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- But what if it's millions of 4chan editors?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I thought there were only 9000? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, there are definitely OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!!!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I thought there were only 9000? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- But what if it's millions of 4chan editors?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- If I remember rightly Stalin was only added to the username bot blacklist because Runtshit had a habit of using it, and we block Runtshit for vandalism. There's nothing inherently offensive or policy-violating about that name. If he starts calling for millions to be killed, then it would be worth a second look. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Jesus, all I did was give the guy a {{uw-username}}. Since his edits had been OK, I felt he might be amenable to seeing the issue with his username and changing it. It's not like I blocked him for that.
I am still unpersuaded by Beeblebrox's arguments, or any suggestion that somehow nobody would find this offensive. I can imagine a lot of our editors from former Soviet republics or Eastern Europe wouldn't be so forgiving either. I really don't think there have been enough other people with the name "Stalin" for it to be seen as anything other than the dictator. To be honest, as much as I respect Beeblebrox as a fellow admin and defer to his judgement on most matters, I found his arguments for why we should completely ignore this to be morally blinkered at best and repulsive at worst. I was half expecting him to next tell me about how Stalin industrialized the USSR in record time (as indeed he did, on the backs of countless unnamed corpses buried under this, this and this. And here.
Anyway ... the fact that it was put on the bot blacklist because Runtshit used it a lot does not mean that other sockpuppeteer/trolls won't. Its history and associations make it inherently attractive for such disruptive purposes, as the end of the above conversation suggests (and I would note that we tend to block any username incorporating a 4chan /b/ meme, including those two character combinations, on sight). And we are right not to let such uses pass without at least comment. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- No arguments from me that Joseph Stalin was not a bad guy, but we should keep in mind that there might not be an issue with his username for him to see, as per the president of this French company or this Duke University researcher (p. 17). Stalin seems to be a rare surname these days, but it is still in use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Probably a Swede, see also sv:Kerstin-Maria Stalín. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't think that saying you "just" put a tag on their userpage accusing them of representing "a feared and loathed tyrant" is a very good counter argument. As I have tried to point out before, the majority of users who receive a notice like that as their first interaction on Wikipedia are never heard from again. And all because their username might represent something that some users might be offended by. Which concern is more important: retaining a new editor who up until they got this notice had been making valid contributions, or protecting users from seeing a word that might offend them even though the connection to Josef Stalin is purely hypothetical? At the very least the language in the notice could have been milder, as it was posted it essentially assumed the user was deliberately trying to represent the Stalin, instead of assuming good faith. What I find puzzling about this, Daniel, is that you seem willing to stretch AGF to rather absurd extremes on other username issues, such as names containing "cock," but you went straight to assuming the very worst with this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Daniel's message on the editor's talk page looks fine to me. As there's nothing wrong with the editor's contributions there's no reason at all to implement a block, but it would be good if the editor could explain why they chose this name given that it is likely to offend some editors. I'd leave a similar message for anyone calling themselves User:Erichitler, User:Ericpolpot, User:Ericidiamin, etc. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm leaning toward saying that this shouldn't be considered a problematic username. While unlikely, it's possible that this guy's real name is Eric Stalin and that he decided to register it as his username. Since Daniel Case has shown examples of users with such usernames quickly producing vandalism, I'd advise one or the other of you two UAA admins to watch Eric's contributions and not be hesitant to warn or block; however, unless problems happen, I don't think that you should be any harder on him than you would someone who had just registered my username if I didn't have it first. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, Eric has made four edits, all to Kilrush; none of them have been particularly good (here they are, all together), but it's not what I'd call vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- They look like perfectly routine and good-faith contributions from a new editor to me. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I mean. Not very helpful, but we don't expect new users to know policy details. What's more, he adds a URL to the references section in what seems to me to be an obvious attempt to provide a source; that's not something I expect from a vandal, but what I expect from an inexperienced new editor who wants to help Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- They look like perfectly routine and good-faith contributions from a new editor to me. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, Eric has made four edits, all to Kilrush; none of them have been particularly good (here they are, all together), but it's not what I'd call vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm leaning toward saying that this shouldn't be considered a problematic username. While unlikely, it's possible that this guy's real name is Eric Stalin and that he decided to register it as his username. Since Daniel Case has shown examples of users with such usernames quickly producing vandalism, I'd advise one or the other of you two UAA admins to watch Eric's contributions and not be hesitant to warn or block; however, unless problems happen, I don't think that you should be any harder on him than you would someone who had just registered my username if I didn't have it first. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- A moment of Googling shows that there is a Facebook user named Eric Stalin, and there is an auto parts company whose president is named Eric Stalin. Also numerous other people in business with surname Stalin. One ought not to leap to conclusions. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the name "Eric Stalin" by itself is not disruptive, unless the editor then engages in advocacy for the Soviet dictator of that name or is otherwise disruptive. But in the case of any disagreement whatsoever about a username, the place to go is WP:RFCN, I'd have thought. Sandstein 09:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- RFCN is for discussing the username with the user themselves. They haven't been heard from since getting the username discussion message on their talk page, which is completely typical of such cases, which is really the larger issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the name "Eric Stalin" by itself is not disruptive, unless the editor then engages in advocacy for the Soviet dictator of that name or is otherwise disruptive. But in the case of any disagreement whatsoever about a username, the place to go is WP:RFCN, I'd have thought. Sandstein 09:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the results so far, I think we can say a consensus is emerging that there is not a real problem with this user name. While I understand Daniel's concern that it may represent Josef Stalin, there is nothing to substantiate that. Even if we were to grant that there was a possible concern, the language used in the discussion notice could certainly have been milder as it essentially was an assumption of bad faith where none was manifest. I think we both touched a sore spot here. Daniel obviously has strong feelings about Stalin, and I admit I have a sore spot regarding any suggestion that anyone is/was as bad as Hitler, as I feel it belittles the terrible evils perpetrated by the nazis. This does not mean I sanction the murderous policies of Stalinism, rather I don't see them as the same kind of genocidal evil that Hitler represented. More to the point though, I don't see any deliberate representation of Stalinism inherent in this user name, and it seems others don't see it either. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would say there's no real consensus for doing anything more, or anything less, than what I did. Regarding the comparative aspect, I think it's beside the point to suggest there is some sort of ultimate evil of all time among oppressive dictators. It is absurd to argue that Stalin or Hitler was worse (as Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it "Well, I suppose at least we didn't have gas chambers") when, to me, the point is that neither should be acceptable as a username or component thereof on this user-edited online encyclopedia ... they both have the potential to cause too much offense no matter what the user's intent is. We can see this with "Hitler"; I don't see what save true historical ignorance keeps anyone from seeing the same as for Stalin. (And I might have similar problems with "Eric Mussolini" as well, to be honest). Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- So if Alessandra Mussolini wanted to contribute to Wikipedia under her own name, we should tell her "Sorry, you can't do it because of your grandfather"? I tend to think we should err on the side of prohibiting usernames rather than allowing them, when there's a real issue with the username - but prohibiting some user from using their real name is generally absurd, and prohibiting what might be the user's real name without evidence to the contrary is caring about something that we shouldn't, in the absence of a behavioral problem. If the user starts demanding that we round up the kulaks and make them contribute their piece in a farming camp, then we can worry about the connotations of their username - but we shouldn't before then. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- She would be allowed to edit the English Wikipedia under that name because it's her own real name, which is always allowed, and thus any discussion of that as a possibly-blockable name is moot. If the editor in question really is named Eric Stalin, and he really wanted to edit under that name, I kind of think he would have left a talk page message or emailed me about that (and if it is his real name, I'm sure getting a complaint about it on Wikipedia is hardly the worst grief it's ever brought him to). That is when I would assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- So if Alessandra Mussolini wanted to contribute to Wikipedia under her own name, we should tell her "Sorry, you can't do it because of your grandfather"? I tend to think we should err on the side of prohibiting usernames rather than allowing them, when there's a real issue with the username - but prohibiting some user from using their real name is generally absurd, and prohibiting what might be the user's real name without evidence to the contrary is caring about something that we shouldn't, in the absence of a behavioral problem. If the user starts demanding that we round up the kulaks and make them contribute their piece in a farming camp, then we can worry about the connotations of their username - but we shouldn't before then. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Daniel, I really wish you would give some consideration to the idea that the exact wording you used in your message left no room for the possibility of good faith. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Because I didn't think there was much. I remain unconvinced that it's a viable name outside the dictator's; there are few other people with that name listed at the article, and the most prominent mentioned here, the Indian politician, has it as a first name that was explicitly derived from the Soviet dictator (I suppose he must have been a red-diaper baby. Why he didn't change it before going into politics I don't know, but that's just me). It is certainly, to me, an improbable enough name in the English-speaking world that I believe plenty of other people would have taken it as a pseudonym as well.
By contrast, I wouldn't block an "Ericlenin" because, although you could say many bad things about Ilyich, there is not the consensus for it being in bad taste that I believe there would be. Nor would I block or even warn a "David Berkowitz" since there are plenty of people with that name for it not to be immediately associated with the serial killer (OTOH, I'd want some proof that "Jeffrey Dahmer" was that person's real name). Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to be a viable name outside of the dictator's. Again, I link the president of this French company and this Duke University researcher (p. 17). Both of them are named "Eric Stalin". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Amusing. One of your allies in another username-related discussion thinks I'm too forgiving; here you think I'm being too strict. But anyway ...
My point is not that nobody would be named Stalin. Apparently some people are. It is that the probability of that being an actual personal name given its historical associations is low enough that an administrator could be forgiven for assuming it to be a troll pseudonym (or a sleeper troll account). Yes, apparently there are actually some people named Hitler in the USA (also see this discussion thread). Would an administrator not knowing that be castigated with a long AN thread for leaving a note on the page of a new user who had otherwise edited innocuously suggesting that might not be a good username? I am being asked to assume good faith yet none is being assumed regarding my (rather mild) actions.
- I prefer not to think of people as "allies" when we are in agreement, as it kind of implies the opposite when we are not. We're simply reasonable people discussing administration of a rather large and complex website, and it stands to reason that we won't always see eye to eye. That said, I don't know that anybody is failing to assume good faith of your note, simply pointing out that you might not have considered all aspects. (Certainly I don't mean to imply that you deliberately took a dim view of this fellow. I know from our prior discussions that biting is a concern of yours.) I wonder if you might consider softening your note, though, at least with respect to "the name of a feared and loathed tyrant". If "Stalin" is this fellow's real name, it might not be the most pleasant return for him, as he's likely aware of the association. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I concede that my message failed to acknowledge the possibility that it was a real name, which I was unaware of at the time. As a result in the future when messaging such names I will ask if it's a real name. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I prefer not to think of people as "allies" when we are in agreement, as it kind of implies the opposite when we are not. We're simply reasonable people discussing administration of a rather large and complex website, and it stands to reason that we won't always see eye to eye. That said, I don't know that anybody is failing to assume good faith of your note, simply pointing out that you might not have considered all aspects. (Certainly I don't mean to imply that you deliberately took a dim view of this fellow. I know from our prior discussions that biting is a concern of yours.) I wonder if you might consider softening your note, though, at least with respect to "the name of a feared and loathed tyrant". If "Stalin" is this fellow's real name, it might not be the most pleasant return for him, as he's likely aware of the association. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Amusing. One of your allies in another username-related discussion thinks I'm too forgiving; here you think I'm being too strict. But anyway ...
- It seems to be a viable name outside of the dictator's. Again, I link the president of this French company and this Duke University researcher (p. 17). Both of them are named "Eric Stalin". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because I didn't think there was much. I remain unconvinced that it's a viable name outside the dictator's; there are few other people with that name listed at the article, and the most prominent mentioned here, the Indian politician, has it as a first name that was explicitly derived from the Soviet dictator (I suppose he must have been a red-diaper baby. Why he didn't change it before going into politics I don't know, but that's just me). It is certainly, to me, an improbable enough name in the English-speaking world that I believe plenty of other people would have taken it as a pseudonym as well.
- Here's the thing with the Indian names: there is a weird cultural thing over there where it's ok to re-use the name of somebody famous, or infamous, without really being "connected" with them. It's seen more as a way of using the fame of their name without really ideologically allying yourself with them. The perfect example is the now-renamed Hitlers' Cross restaurant, where the owner just wanted people to know he was "different, like Adolf Hitler was different." Very bizarre but apparently not all that uncommon over there. I really didn't intend for this to be a fight between me and you, all I wanted was some wider input from the community on this because we were obviously not going to come to an agreement on the subject. I'm sorry you've taken it so personally and apparently think of me as an enemy who is gathering his allies against you, that's not at all what I had intended. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I let it get this way. I have, in my response to Moonriddengirl above, conceded one of your points and explained what I'll do differently in the future. I just felt a little ganged-up on, that's all. Let's move on. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Updating Checkuserblock template
I had a interesting question come up on my talk page. I declined an unblock request from an IP, as they were caught in a rangeblock placed by Alison. This was a checkuser block and it has been specified those cannot be lifted without appealing to Arbcom or the checkuser who placed the block. However, DuncanHill left me a note pointing out that any IP caught in the rangeblock isn't really given good advice on what to do. I left another note on the IP's talk page with the arbcom email address (and later apologized for the incorrect advice).
When I went to look at {{CheckUser block}}, I see instructions for registered users caught up in it, but no instructions for IP's. My question is this: is it easier to update that template (which already contains a lot of text) with instructions for anonymous users caught in the block or should it be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as users post unblock requests? TNXMan 13:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- The instructions for creating an account are already in the MediaWiki:Blockedtext. In this case the user should have been directed to create/request an account, or log into their existing one. It seems to me the user was complaining more about the block itself than lack of direction, but perhaps an extra line in the template about the necessity to have an account would be helpful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- The user was complaining about 1)the incorrect information given to blocked IP, 2) the unexplained block itself, does anyone know how many IPs are affected by it? and 3) being forced to log in (especially by an Admin with a stated wish to stop all anon editors). DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are 65,000 IPs, and either more or fewer users. The block is due to recent disruption from sockpuppets from that network, as noted in the template and the block log (a quick search will give you more answers). We often anonblock ranges when there's considerable disruption from them. This is the third time this range has been checkuserblocked. Logging in is something we sometimes ask users to do when they're on the same networks as vandals. Would explicit instructions to log in to your account have helped? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Explicit instructions about how to contest a checkuser block (i.e. emailing Arbcom) would have helped, as would a readily visible link to the block log. Asking editors who find themselves unable to edit because of someone else's misbehaviour to make all the running in finding out what has happened just pisses people off, and is likely to lead to more, not less, vandalism. The template I was presented with was unclear, confusing and unhelpful. I am a very experienced editor. God knows what someone here for the first time would make of it - they'd probably read it as "fuck off, you're not wanted". I shouldn't be forced to log in to edit. I don't want to log in to edit. I hate logging in to edit. DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are 65,000 IPs, and either more or fewer users. The block is due to recent disruption from sockpuppets from that network, as noted in the template and the block log (a quick search will give you more answers). We often anonblock ranges when there's considerable disruption from them. This is the third time this range has been checkuserblocked. Logging in is something we sometimes ask users to do when they're on the same networks as vandals. Would explicit instructions to log in to your account have helped? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- The user was complaining about 1)the incorrect information given to blocked IP, 2) the unexplained block itself, does anyone know how many IPs are affected by it? and 3) being forced to log in (especially by an Admin with a stated wish to stop all anon editors). DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- So the whole of Hutchison 3G U.K. is blocked in effective perpetuity (August is a long way away.) because of a single vandal, eh? We really need to come up with a mechanism for transferring complaints about individuals to ISPs, because the road that we are travelling does not end up in a good place. Eventually there'll be one apple spoiling the barrel at every ISP, and our principle of openness will be halfway gone. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ABUSE? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- From my experience with it, WP:ABUSE isn't going to have any teeth unless WMF employees make the abuse calls, and even then ISPs are incredibly hesitant to enforce their ToS. (See also User:Mmbabies, whom has in the past wound up holding mush of Houston hostage because AT&T refused to listen to abuse reports.) Abuse departments will generally not listen to people who do not have an @wikipedia.org or @wikimedia.org email address. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 19:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ABUSE? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have a related technical question. If I block a range of IP addresses, the individual IP addresses see only the block log, correct? And only when they attempt to edit? In other words if I block my account right now, I can look at my block log to verify the reason and duration, but if I was just an ip in a /20, I could only see the block log if I attempted to edit? Protonk (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm on the Hutchison 3G ISP and there are two groups of IP ranges. We seem to have been blocked many times before on both ranges thanks to User:Mickey Darwin (as with this case), User:Dr Roots and (for most cases) User:GEORGIEGIBBONS. Every time we connect to the network, we may be on a different range (usually this range and the one blocked due to Mickey Darwin). WP:ABUSE may be useful. 92.40.164.249 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ABUSE has been heavily revamped but 12 months ago when I last poked about it seemed more like a holding pen for reports than an actual avenue for results. Unfortunately from an ISP perspective long term abuse on wikipedia hits the "don't know, don't care, can't help" trifecta. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- And that is a reason why so many socks are at large today, ISPs don't give a ****. 92.40.164.249 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't I just say that above? ISPs want to hear from an employee of the organization (i.e. someone paid to deal with such stuff). Mmbabies issued death threats towards celebrities, and we couldn't get AT&T to yank his access because the reporter isn't a WMF employee. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- And as Jeske said above, ISPs still dont give a f*** regardless of who files the reports, which practically means that there is no sanction to permanantly stop the three vandals I mentioned as well as many others across the world. It seems that the ISPs don't care as long as they get their money. 92.40.164.249 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't I just say that above? ISPs want to hear from an employee of the organization (i.e. someone paid to deal with such stuff). Mmbabies issued death threats towards celebrities, and we couldn't get AT&T to yank his access because the reporter isn't a WMF employee. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- And that is a reason why so many socks are at large today, ISPs don't give a ****. 92.40.164.249 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ABUSE has been heavily revamped but 12 months ago when I last poked about it seemed more like a holding pen for reports than an actual avenue for results. Unfortunately from an ISP perspective long term abuse on wikipedia hits the "don't know, don't care, can't help" trifecta. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- (That's not how one spells "fig".) A technical solution has been suggested on my talk page, which I've referred to the Technical Village Pump. But yes, as others have said, the problem is more an administrative one than a technical one, I think. Checkusers can identify the IP addresses and edit times, but we (collectively) cannot seem to transfer that information to ISPs in such a way that they sit up and take notice. ISPs sit up and take notice when their customers send unsolicited bulk electronic mail. Perhaps it is time that the world started encouraging them to sit up and take notice when their customers come to a charitable foundation's WWW site and start doing what this vandal did. (I'm carefully skirting around the issue for the obvious reasons.) Consider the negative publicity that Hutchison 3G would incur if it transpired that it knew that it had a customer that was using the World Wide Web for this purpose, and was ignoring the matter. I suggest that any ISP would consider sitting up and taking notice when abuse reports come in from Wikipedia volunteers to be by far the less painful course of action in the long term. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a bad idea but the problem is that most vandals/socks use dynamic IP ranges. 92.40.199.161 (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a problem at all. Hutchinson 3G knows exactly who you are, for example. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dynamic IPs aren't an issue at all. Generally, an ISP tends to have information on whom was using a particular IP on their network at any given time. Also, I heavily doubt we, as Wikipedians, could and should get into the public shaming business. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, doing anything "real" about this (either through PR or legal channels) is something that could massively backfire. But it seems that abuse reports as it is lacks teeth and will probably continue to lack teeth. ISPs will continue to do nothing if the risk of doing nothing is de minimis. In the case of death threats, contacts to law enforcement agencies should reference the ISP and note that an abuse report will be sent out, and the corresponding abuse report should note that law enforcement has been contacted. All this should preferentially take place from a WMF email address. But for general long-term abuse... maybe contact should be reserved for cases where the organization controlling the address might care (e.g., the abuse originated from within a corporate network, or there is reason to believe the abuse originated from a compromised host). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dynamic IPs aren't an issue at all. Generally, an ISP tends to have information on whom was using a particular IP on their network at any given time. Also, I heavily doubt we, as Wikipedians, could and should get into the public shaming business. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a problem at all. Hutchinson 3G knows exactly who you are, for example. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a bad idea but the problem is that most vandals/socks use dynamic IP ranges. 92.40.199.161 (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which means that the same vandals will just keep coming back because the ISPs simply don't care what happens on the Internet as long as they get their money, particulary the larger ISPs like BT, AT&T and Hutchison 3G (not sure whether H3G have ever recieved a WP:ABUSE report or not). 92.40.206.112 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Updating Checkuserblock template - updated
- I've updated the checkuserblock template to be more user friendly. The updated version 1/ emphasizes that the blocked user may not have done anything wrong, 2/ provides better explanation in plain English, 3/ provides better instructions how to deal with it. If anyone wants to migrate any of those copyedits onto other block templates, it might be a good idea. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is better thank you FT2, but the "you may appeal the block here" link is not ideal. Checkuser blocks have to be appealed to Arbcom by email, may as well just say that on the template instead of linking to the guide to appealing blocks. DuncanHill (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why does it need to offer anon IPs the opportunity to appeal the block at all? The comparable non-checkuser range block template - {{Anonblock}} - doesn't and hasn't at any time in the four years it has been in use. Roger Davies talk 20:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well then that one should include them too. Thanks for spotting it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why? This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. Roger Davies talk 20:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The existing notice that people get when caught in a rangeblock is confusing and leads people to appeal in the wrong manner, or admins to give mistaken advice. Arbs had an email about my experiences of it, I'm happy for any Arb to forward it to you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's not my point :) I am curious to know why anons editing from dynamic IPs need an opportunity to appeal a range block. Roger Davies talk 20:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because Arbcom says they can appeal - it says so in the checkuser block notice on the Arbcom noticeboard. It would also be nice if just occasionally someone might be prepared to believe that not every anon on a dynamic IP is a vandal. I know that assuming good faith goes contrary to all the principles of Wikipedia, but it would be nice to try it for once. Now, you've already said the existing template needs rewording, why don't you come up with something? DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's not my point :) I am curious to know why anons editing from dynamic IPs need an opportunity to appeal a range block. Roger Davies talk 20:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The existing notice that people get when caught in a rangeblock is confusing and leads people to appeal in the wrong manner, or admins to give mistaken advice. Arbs had an email about my experiences of it, I'm happy for any Arb to forward it to you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why? This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. Roger Davies talk 20:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well then that one should include them too. Thanks for spotting it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why does it need to offer anon IPs the opportunity to appeal the block at all? The comparable non-checkuser range block template - {{Anonblock}} - doesn't and hasn't at any time in the four years it has been in use. Roger Davies talk 20:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is better thank you FT2, but the "you may appeal the block here" link is not ideal. Checkuser blocks have to be appealed to Arbcom by email, may as well just say that on the template instead of linking to the guide to appealing blocks. DuncanHill (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Roger - because the anon IP may be a genuinely blocked user who edits as an IP, and is the target of a range block. We do block specific IP users (or their ranges if dynamic) not just account users, and when they do, they need to know how to appeal it. It isn't just account holders that can appeal, and it isn't just the worst editors who have range blocks. It's even quite possible that in a large range block, there'll be a 2nd user who is independently blocked for something else and gets this message, and they need to know how to appeal. It happens, though don't ask me for a specific example (hard to find). In principle even the abuser who caused the range block itself, is still entitled to appeal it. It's not that common that someone needs to appeal a range block, but it can happen. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Roger is perfectly well aware that it happens to innocent editors, as we've been discussing it by email since it happened to me. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- How would such an appeal be meaningful? The appellant writes saying they can't edit from their IP address; the response is that the IP range has been blocked and they should open an account or wait til the block is lifted. Roger Davies talk 21:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- So why did Arbcom say that editors can appeal? Were they just talking out of their collective arse? Should the template just say "Log in - or fuck off, that's your choice"? Christ Roger, you might as well have saved me the time and effort and told me upfront that Arbcom was going to ignore the appeal I submitted instead of stringing me along pretending that you were looking into it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all, Duncan. It's just that there's no point in placing a range block, which is intended to stop anons editing, if it's lifted the moment an anon says they can't edit. Roger Davies talk 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (To DuncanHill) - Not quite. Two different things. Most innocent editors have an account (as you have) and can use it for an anon-only rangeblock, or are not going to "appeal" as they've done nothing wrong, they need to ask to bypass it. Appeal would only be relevant for users intended to be blocked, who (if rangeblocked) will almost always know who they are. There are cases where appeal of a range block is needed, I've listed a few, not least the rangeblock's intended target ("anyone can request unblock and promise to behave"). Those are the ones it's needed for, not "innocents" or those with accounts. The latter need to login or be given bypass information instead. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- So why did Arbcom say that editors can appeal? Were they just talking out of their collective arse? Should the template just say "Log in - or fuck off, that's your choice"? Christ Roger, you might as well have saved me the time and effort and told me upfront that Arbcom was going to ignore the appeal I submitted instead of stringing me along pretending that you were looking into it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel it important to point out that the template also directs users blocked with {{checkuserblock}} to the form used to request an account via the WP:ACC process. We routinely handle such requests with the aid of a friendly CU with access to the tool and turnaround time is fairly swift. We also handle {{anonblock}}s, rangeblocks etc. You name it, we deal with it. All in a day's work. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
My Topic Ban
I am Now Able To Appeal. Wher Should I Appeal? OttomanJackson 01:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)
- Depends. Who issued the topic ban? What event was it issued for? What do you plan to do differently in regards to the articles you are banned from? What evidence can you show, via editing in areas outside of your topic ban, that you have changed the way you behave so that we can have real evidence that the same problematic behavior will not return? We'll need real answers to these questions before we can decide... --Jayron32 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jayron. Copied from Editing Restrictions "OttomanJackson (talk • contribs • logs) is banned from making any edits to content relating to Michael Jackson, including the creation of or edits to articles on Jackson's songs, or the insertion or changing of material related to Jackson in other articles. Is open to review by community consensus after one month."
- I, OttomanJackson, promise to not create Articles on MJ song without consensue, not to redirect Beatles songs without consenus, and to not sockpuppet. OttomanJackson 01:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good, now on to the other parts. Can you direct us to other work you have done, outside of this area, for us to judge to see if you have learned from your prior mistakes? --Jayron32 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Look at Large Denominations of United States Currency and Pants on the Ground. Thanks. OttomanJackson 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)
- Good, now on to the other parts. Can you direct us to other work you have done, outside of this area, for us to judge to see if you have learned from your prior mistakes? --Jayron32 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I, OttomanJackson, promise to not create Articles on MJ song without consensue, not to redirect Beatles songs without consenus, and to not sockpuppet. OttomanJackson 01:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jayron. Copied from Editing Restrictions "OttomanJackson (talk • contribs • logs) is banned from making any edits to content relating to Michael Jackson, including the creation of or edits to articles on Jackson's songs, or the insertion or changing of material related to Jackson in other articles. Is open to review by community consensus after one month."
I don't have much issue with the topic ban being removed, but it would be on the condition that, if you do anything that led to the ban (that you listed above in your promise), you will be indefinitely blocked—a one-strike-and-you're-out condition. Other than that, please try not to put so many images in the currency article (maybe read the MOS as the title should not have been capitalized), and put a link to your user page, user talk page, or both in your signature per WP:Signatures. Thanks, —fetch·comms 02:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Dies this mean my ban is lifted? Thanks! OttomanJackson User:OttomanJackson 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)
Discussion
So, will this be lifted? It is still listed at the editing restrictions section at the moment and the above is not a particularly thorough sample of consensus. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- The topic ban discussion ended on June 30. [20]. I would suggest maintaining the topic ban.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay guys, Please use Remove or Keep for clarity. I will be good I promise User:OttomanJackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.54.202 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep ban in place. Out of curiosity, Ottoman, why do you keep using the IP that signed your comment above? Do you forget to sign in and out between the two accounts? I don't think you deny that both are you, but unblock requests like "IP address is shared by multiple people, I did not sockpuppet" aren't very encouraging... Doc9871 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- This statement is similarly discouraging, IMO... Doc9871 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have filed an SPI - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OttomanJackson. Doc9871 (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep ban in place and block editor for violating it through an IP duck... Err, I meant sock. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 16:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep ban in place I just struck my comment above because of the concerns with using IPs to edit when warned only to use one account. —fetch·comms 21:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet Problem
(If this is the wrong place then please move this to Wikipedia:ANI)
I am good888 on here and i have a friend(the xbox kid)
Me and my friend are newbies here so we don't know much here.The problem is that we are concened that we have been accused of sockpuppety but we do not know the page for sockpuppet concens.The reason why is that my older brother had a account here when he was younger(Because of a school he used to go to was doing some wikipedia stuff) and we think that a user(by mistake of couse) has accused us of sockpuppety and we maybe be even blocked for it.
If one:there was no case:then use the checkuser so you can see how many users there are useing this ip.If there is me and my brother(my friend should not be on there because he signed up on another computer) then at least i(and my friend) can edit again. If there are more accounts on the checkuser results then they have to be my brothers sockpuppets because i would never ever create any more accounts because i like to help wikipedia not harm it. If two:there was a case:If it was just me,my brother and my friend:end the case please.If there are more then us three there then use checkuser to see if they are my brothers or not.Then end the case
If three:the case has finshed and me my brother and my friend have been blocked:Please unblock us (read above for reasion). If there are more users in the case use checkuser again to see if they are sockpuppets of my brother or not.If they are not unblock them.If they are sockpuppets of my brother don't unblock them and my brother(even though my brother never goes on wikipedia any more)
Think we are lying?Well please do unblock us as someone on here called Jack something(i forgot the last part) was given a secound chance even though he made a load of sockpuppets and me and my friend should be given a unblock as we have made no other accounts.
By the way my brother may have not made a account i only think so because he once said one of his friends(who once deleted the usa history and replaced it with something) was banned from editing wikipedia.
p.s my friend isn't here at the monment Its just me and no we are not telling that silly little brother thingy
pp.s sorry for this massive post
Thanks from good888 92.1.78.66 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Evading your block to complain about it, and blaming your brother, classic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- And, to make it even better, neither of the accounts you mention has edited in a few months, and neither of them is directly blocked or has a sockpuppetry notice on their user or talk pages, so we don't even have anywhere to start replying to this without knowing the name of the "brother" account. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This user was blocked 2 days ago but he has sincerely apologized and by keeping a tight watch on him, so please lift block. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- No one has reviewed his unblock request because he formatted it wrong and it did not get added to Category:Requests for unblock. I'll review it now, but I'm not too impressed by that "apology." Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking that this case might make a good RfA question. My guess is that a candidate who said that he would maintain an indef in this situation would have a chance of passing of pretty close to zero. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which is to say, the normal odds. bibliomaniac15 18:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Declining an unblock request does not mean the user will remain blocked forever. I think I explained myself pretty clearly, if he can give a more honest and compelling rationale to be unblocked I have no problem spooling out some WP:ROPE and letting him prove it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Beeblebrox. If someone decides to unblock them, I would be Ok with that, no need to ask - routine AIV block for usual vandalism, I have no other history with that user. Materialscientist (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Declining an unblock request does not mean the user will remain blocked forever. I think I explained myself pretty clearly, if he can give a more honest and compelling rationale to be unblocked I have no problem spooling out some WP:ROPE and letting him prove it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Notification of users about posts on this board - archived, decision required
The thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive215#Notification_of_users_about_posts_on_this_board has been archived without resolution. Can a neutral admin evaluate the discussion/consensus and carry out the appropiate actions? Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've read it as an uninvolved admin: it should be implemented. I am not totally au fait with template creation so would appreciate guidance on what needs doing. Fences&Windows 23:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- A start. –xenotalk 00:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great start, Xeno! But what about, "Inform other users..."? No "must", no bold text; and no "please". More "middle-of-the-road"... Doc9871 (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've boldly updated it to reflect the current ANI wording, bolded the "must notify" and included the notification template code. We might still need to sort the edit notice though. Exxolon (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The relevant template (I think) is at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard - however it requires an admin to edit, I cannot do it. Exxolon (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It would seem to be as simple as adding the following code from the ANI notice to the bottom (with a slight change so the correct notification template is given)
- I've boldly updated it to reflect the current ANI wording, bolded the "must notify" and included the notification template code. We might still need to sort the edit notice though. Exxolon (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great start, Xeno! But what about, "Inform other users..."? No "must", no bold text; and no "please". More "middle-of-the-road"... Doc9871 (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- A start. –xenotalk 00:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
{{tmbox|type=content|text=You '''must notify''' any user that you discuss. You may use {{tlsx|AN-notice}} to do so.<br />Also, please '''provide links and [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] here''' to involved pages and editors.}}
which should produce
Line breaks may also be needed of course.Exxolon (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Resolved?
I think that covers the main areas that require doing. Can we mark resolved? Exxolon (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
KMTDCfan89 repeated removing deletion tags
Moved to WP:ANI.
WP:AN3 is backing up
Three reports in the last 14 hours none have been adressed from an admin thanx Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Unban discussion for User:Drew R. Smith
- Relevent link to initial banning discussion: [21].
- Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The initial ban took place in February, 2010. The user (at this account at least) appears to have abided by the spirit of Wikipedia:Standard Offer in having stayed away for many months. I am officially neutral on the issue, as I was uninvolved initially. Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - The kinds of things he was banned for are kind of scary. The note on his userpage indicates massive copyright violations and it also appears he was socking as recently as last March [22]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't trust Drew at all, but he seems to mainly have kept to the standard offer guidelines. If he's unblocked, I'd prefer to see a checkuser beforehand, to confirm that no socking has taken place. I'm not sure he'll be a positive here, but am not passionate enough about this to oppose. AniMate 03:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support He seems to have kept to the standard offer guidelines and many of the things he did before the ban were possitive contributions (such as attempting to restart the AQF newsleter). However I think a checkuser would be a realy good idea and that if he is unbanned he should be monitored clousely.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Having read the explanation he gives on his talk page, it is just one long list of "I lost it. I lost it again. For no good reason, I then lost it yet again. Then I started with sockpuppets. But my other edits were good, if you don't count the many copyright violations." I have no confidence that the problematic behaviour would suddenly stop because we are six months later. I also generally oppose the "standard offer" (which is an essay, not a guideline), we spend way too much time on giving people chance after chance simply because exceptionally someone comes back and becomes a somewhat positive contributor. people get their second and third chances when they return from earlier blocks, there is no need to give them yet another chance. Fram (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm leaning towards opposing this request mainly as the editor hasn't said in their statement what they intend to edit and how we will know that they're not falsifying sources or violating copyright. I'd be interested in seeing comments from editors who were involved with this editor, as it appears that he caused them a lot of serious problems. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. He needs to demonstrate understanding of the copyright policy before we should even consider unbanning him. MER-C 13:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with MER-C on this; before we can unban this user, they should convince us they now understand our copyright policy and won't violate it again. As far as I'm concerned, they've not done it yet. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have little faith in anyone that, in response to a page being deleted, "took to trolling". This, combined with the faking of the reference shows me that he is easily swayed to dishonest actions, which is about as far from compatible with this project as you can get. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I notice that some editors commented above that they would like to hear from editors who have been involved with Drew, and that would include me. Oh, this is tough for me. I was one of the first editors to interact with him, when he first came to the project, and I have a very warm place in my heart for him for his genuinely good work at WP:AQF. On the other hand, I know about the things that got him banned, and if this were anyone I had not interacted with personally, I would be saying not just no, but hell no, to a second chance. I guess I would lean towards oppose, but I could probably be talked into some sort of a plan for a return subject to restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Has the user been participating (constructively) in other Wikimedia projects since his ban here? –xenotalk 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nuke This. Drew has been a disruptive user all along, and I rather suspect he's been socking again. Drew is just a troll. Very Involved == Very Knowledgeable, Jack Merridew 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did the pot just call the kettle black?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.147.169 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're a troll, too.diff Jack Merridew 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did the pot just call the kettle black?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.147.169 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Any free administrators who could take a look at the Vandalism board would be appreciated. Some have been sitting there for quite some time. Active Banana (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Long term IP vandal
150.176.249.100 (talk · contribs): vandalizing has continued after a recent release from a 6 month block. Suggest another block of longer duration. Thoughts? Jujutacular talk 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Recalcitrant user
LAVINA4194 (talk · contribs) has consistently created articles about Ohio state-level politicians that use as their only reference a link to a Google books search result, that does not actually produce any meaningful results about the politician in question. Example pages include
He has been notified of this on several occasions, as well as his practice of miscategorizing pages. Attempts to engage him in dialog at his talk page have gone unanswered. According to his edit history, this user has not engaged any other user in dialog in any talk space. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- He created another page about ten minutes ago with a valid reference and appropriate categories. Something to keep an eye on but seems like he means well. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- He may mean well, but he is making a lot of work for other editors and won't take any advice, nor even engage in the dialog. My ethics teacher liked to tell the story of the nurse who accidentally gave the patient drano instead of medicine. She meant well, but... WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- You can't really equate this guy creating these articles with that - one is a minor problem, the other would be criminal negligence. Exxolon (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I may have stretched the metaphor somewhat, but LAVINA's actions are not really a "minor problem" as far as Wikipedia is concerned because he is essentially creating unreferenced BLPs. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've only looked at Seese, but I see no big problem with it. He's plainly citing a page from a directory of state representatives in 1994, so we can assume that Seese is included therein; it's quite possible that LAVINA4194 owns the original book and is treating it as an online source so that the rest of us can see something about it. If the remaining articles are like it, I don't see any reason to treat these as unreferenced BLPs. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I may have stretched the metaphor somewhat, but LAVINA's actions are not really a "minor problem" as far as Wikipedia is concerned because he is essentially creating unreferenced BLPs. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, let's not bite. Getting on a newbie for not adding categories is over the top. It would be nice if he responded on the talk page but this is not a major problem. J04n(talk page) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Requested page moves.
There is a requested page move at Talk:List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs, which appears to have no oppostion. The request had been in the back log of WP:RM for a while now, so I looked it over and closed the discussion, but it appears that the page is move protected for some reason, and it requires admin tools to move.
Also, there is a page move requested at Talk:Philadelphia Convention, which is also in the back log at WP:RM, which has no opposition. Thsi move also requires admin tools to make.
If someone with tools could review these requests, it would be helpful. Thank You.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs done. Philadelphia Convention not done, because I cannot in good conscience do a page move based upon a consensus that I think is wholly ill-informed. There are plenty of history and constitutional law books that call this the Philadelphia Convention (The first three pages of Google Books results for "philadelphia convention" 1787 all do.), and a consensus of just two people on a wiki saying "I've never heard it called that." doesn't overrule that for me. Another administrator might be willing to take this action. Uncle G (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I couldn't ask anyone to do something that don't feel is right, but remember that according to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions that no minimum participation is required for requested moves. And there was no opposition.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is an instance of where I know the encyclopaedia to be right, and the consensus to be wrong, and can back that up. (Even though the discussion is closed, for future reference I've put a small sampling of the many books on this subject that call this the Philadelphia Convention on the talk page, and cited a supporting source for some of the previously not explicitly sourced prose in the article's introduction in the article, to boot.) So I choose not to use my tools to enact a discussion closure. I say that it's called this in plenty of history and law books with my ordinary editor hat on. Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I couldn't ask anyone to do something that don't feel is right, but remember that according to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions that no minimum participation is required for requested moves. And there was no opposition.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that the discussion has been closed, but I am a bit disturbed in some of your wording above. It almost makes it look like your saying that I don't care about consensus, because your right and I'm wrong.. Thats not exactly how an admin should behave, if you get my drift. I came to this page for help on a page move, yet not only was that not completed by the admin who looked at the page, decide to ignore unanamous consensus. By going to the page as an uninvolved admin, then not only deciding that everyone else is wrong and you are right, may be unethical. But as the discussion wasn't officially closed by said admin, there may be no violation of wikipedia policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how an admin not performing an admin action can be considered unethical. We are under no requirement to do anything here. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of that. Yet there were no objections after ten days, until an uninvolved admin, whose job it was to determine consensus decided that the unanamous consensus was wrong. Doesn't this sound like just about every single discussion where one user decides that everyone is wrong even though consenus seems to be against him? Like I said before, most likely not a policy violation, it just stinks to high heaven.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well he didn't just say "I'm right, they're wrong" - he disputed the outcome and backed it up with sources proving the consensus was erroneous. The two supporters didn't cite any sources or give any credible arguments - it's not just about the number of people in support or opposition, it's also the quality of their comments/arguments. The correct thing to do here would be to go and find sources supporting the move (and the other editors should also do so) then relist for move with better evidence the move is correct. Exxolon (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- He disagreed with the consensus and had no obligation to act on its behalf. It's definitely not a policy violation and it doesn't stink one bit; he is not obligated to do a single thing. He looked, he chose not to act on it, and spoke his mind. In fact, it almost seems like you're complaining about that; "There were no objections after ten days, until someone came along and spoke against the consensus, with multiple sources backing him up". Even admins are allowed to have an opinon. Now, if he had reversed the move after it had happened, then you might have a point, but he didn't - he discussed it. He did nothing, which you would be hard pressed to justify calling an ethical violation. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um...its still open, so what is the next step, other than refuting and finding sources? It seems to me that a unanamous conclusion wouldn't have needed this musch drama.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Either wait for admin to move it or, if none are forthcoming, gather better consensus than two people. Since admins are not obligated to do anything, if none are willing to move the article then that's a pretty broad consensus unto itself. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It should be closed as "move contrary to sources - not done" or something. If you want to propose the move again, you'll need to come up with sources showing the new title is the best/most common/most appropiate name, sufficient to outweigh the sources already quoted that support leaving it at the current title. Exxolon (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've relisted it, to give people the chance to come up with better arguments than "I've never heard of it". Looking at the names used in reliable sources would be a start. Fences&Windows 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- This may be the first time an unopposed page move request has ever been relisted. Have I really seen it all, or is there more to come?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well the closing admin opposed it if you want to get technical. Let it go, I think he made the right call. Exxolon (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was never closed, if you want to get technical. If it was closed, then that would have been highly wrong, and technically a breach of admin powers, as there was absolutely no opposition at the time of review. I'm not saying that any "powers" have been misused, but this sure does come awfully close.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well the closing admin opposed it if you want to get technical. Let it go, I think he made the right call. Exxolon (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- This may be the first time an unopposed page move request has ever been relisted. Have I really seen it all, or is there more to come?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've relisted it, to give people the chance to come up with better arguments than "I've never heard of it". Looking at the names used in reliable sources would be a start. Fences&Windows 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um...its still open, so what is the next step, other than refuting and finding sources? It seems to me that a unanamous conclusion wouldn't have needed this musch drama.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of that. Yet there were no objections after ten days, until an uninvolved admin, whose job it was to determine consensus decided that the unanamous consensus was wrong. Doesn't this sound like just about every single discussion where one user decides that everyone is wrong even though consenus seems to be against him? Like I said before, most likely not a policy violation, it just stinks to high heaven.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how an admin not performing an admin action can be considered unethical. We are under no requirement to do anything here. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that the discussion has been closed, but I am a bit disturbed in some of your wording above. It almost makes it look like your saying that I don't care about consensus, because your right and I'm wrong.. Thats not exactly how an admin should behave, if you get my drift. I came to this page for help on a page move, yet not only was that not completed by the admin who looked at the page, decide to ignore unanamous consensus. By going to the page as an uninvolved admin, then not only deciding that everyone else is wrong and you are right, may be unethical. But as the discussion wasn't officially closed by said admin, there may be no violation of wikipedia policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Rollback!
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- As Wikipedia's Admins have decided in their limited wisdom to prevent me having access to roll back, would they please be more attentive to their duties to pages in future [23]. I do not expect to see this sort of thing hanging around for hours in future. Thank you. Giacomo 20:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, You don't need rollback to get rid of vandalism, as you clearly did. I'm not an admin, but I have rollback, and can't catch every bit of vandalism. Thanks for fixing the vandalism.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh no, a nigh-invisible vandalism persisted for hours! If only someone could manually click the previous diff and hit save! Whoever will save us, surely not any admins, for they busy themselves frolicking in the vale ... wait, what is that upon yon hill? Our saviour, with an edit button and a keyboard? Hark, we are saved! Wait... kind sir, it was you who delivered us from this evil? Blessed be! And without rollback, even! Truly, you are a child of God. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just make sure it does not happen again please Golbez. Fortunately, now I am restored to you all, but I don't have time to do all the admin's jobs. Perhaps a little less time expending all of your energies here and elsewhere and more time on the encyclopedia will ensure these things don't happen again. Giacomo 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- With 3 million articles and me just one poor, desperate mortal, I rely on you, mine saviour, to point out the vandalisms and smite them downe. --Golbez (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- But enough with that pratter, since when is reverting vandalism solely an administrator's job? If you're an editor, and editors are here to improve the encyclopedia, then improve it by removing vandalism. I don't remember it being in the charter that only people with the bit were allowed to remove vandalism. In fact, it's usually "he who smelt it, edits it out". Instead of bitching about other people not cleaning up vandalism, why don't you do your job as an editor here to improve the pedia and happily clean it up yourself. --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Golbez, enough prattle here. I see you in threads above. Go swat vandals and be an admin! Giacomo 20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Boring? - only boring people are ever bored! However, reverting vandalsim is boring which is why Admins are so suited to it and I am not. However, my sojourns in the sunshine are now completed and Wikipedia can have my undivided attention. However, on my return, I am surprised to find vandalism being permitted to remain unchecked, while Admins tediously and endlessly pontificate here instead of working as they claimed in the RFAs they wished to do. What a good thing I am back with time on my hands to redress these matters. Giacomo 21:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just make sure it does not happen again please Golbez. Fortunately, now I am restored to you all, but I don't have time to do all the admin's jobs. Perhaps a little less time expending all of your energies here and elsewhere and more time on the encyclopedia will ensure these things don't happen again. Giacomo 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Discount Tire Company
Can someone please undelete Discount Tire Company so I can work on improving it? I'm certain that the article had at least one source when it was prod-deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Restored by default as a contested PROD. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)