Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a messageboard for all administrators. Its chief purpose is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikipedia may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Non-administrators are free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. (The page archivers really need the time information.)

Please be aware that this isn't the place to bring disputes over content — we aren't referees. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. If you bring content disputes here, we will advise you to take them elsewhere, such as mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration.

To request specific assistance from an administrator, see Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]]. If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both.

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page. This last point is particularly important, as it makes this page easier for admins to watch; more admins will watch/monitor this page if the volume of postings is smaller.

Related pages:

• Meta-discussions about the board (what it's for, how to publicize it, etc) at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator's_noticeboard
• An index of "interesting" incidents in the Incident archives (i.e. ones where the discussion about an incident produced notable precedents, or other useful discussion of policy) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident index

See also:

• Blocking policy
• Block user
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames,

Tasks

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion help

Looks like this needs some cleaning up, too. Noel (talk) 20:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is really majorly backed up. I spent most of the day hacking away vaste swathes of material, and it's still totally overgrown. This page desperately needs some admin to take this on as their permanent bailiwick, and become its local beat cop. Alas, I just don't have the time. Do we have a volunteer? Noel (talk) 03:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I whack at it every time I play with wikipedia. It's gotten to the point that it's almost the only thing I do on wikipedia. Even so, I've been slacking lately, and spending time on my other hobbies. Every little bit anyone does helps. When (the rare times anyway) I finish with CfD, I start whacking at the categories marked for deletion (in the category) but not listed on CfD. (Essentially, if they are empty, they go. If not and they are not on CfD, the notice gets removed.) --ssd 05:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have spent a few hours deleting only the categories most obviously needing deletion, and there are still some left. However, I have not cleaned up the residue from the CfD page; some non-admin can do that as well as I can probably. Also, there are a large number of things that have been voted on, but no action taken (like moving articles to different categories). This should probably be done by bot by large category, and either person or bot for smaller ones. (This also could be done by a non-admin.) There is a bot, but I think it is on vacation. --ssd 08:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the bot is already working on a fairly large backlog of categories that need to be moved (from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/US vs U.S.), so it's just a matter of time before it all gets cleared up. --ssd 13:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've spent the last day or two cleaning it up so it's length is more tolerable now but there's still a fair number of categories from December to be dealt with. I've used my bot to help move pages on category renames. RedWolf 23:46, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidates in need of attention

Featured Picture Candidates needs someone familiar with the process to go over the nominations and do some promoting and archiving. Some of them are long overdue in getting a promotion. Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think we've caught up now. It doesn't need an admin, just a couple more editors willing to help. The instructions are at the bottom of the page. User:Solitude used to do a fair bit of this, but went on a WikiBreak just before Christmas, and User:Ed g2s was also away for a couple of days. That just left me, handling the promotions and managing the Picture of the day templates. With Wikipedia crawling, it took me nearly 3 hours to promote 3 pictures on Thursday. -- Solipsist 11:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

General

Three revert rule

I ask here because I think it may be the best way of getting a quick feel for the consensus on a recent change. Recently the three revert rule was made enforceable. Now the case of a simple revert is easy to identify and most edits which are termed "reverts" fall into this category: a diff between two different versions of the text of a page or section shows that they are identical, with all intermediate changes reverted.

More recently I have noticed users deleting the added text of other users selectively. This is slightly more difficult to recognise because a diff between two versions isn't identical. What shows up however is that if two versions are compared, added text in intermediate changes is selectively deleted. So for instance in one example the first user made a cosmetic edit, correcting the spelling of a single word, and a second user made a more substantial edit in which text was added. A third user then came along and performed an edit to delete all of the added text of the second user while retaining the cosmetic edit of the first, and also tweaked the heading of a section. The effect was to remove the added text of the second user.

This becomes a question because the third user had very shortly before performed two reverts on the same page, and the third edit could be seen as an attempt to evade the three revert rule.

I'd like to open the question up. Is this kind of edit covered by existing policy or practise? Does it qualify in this case as a third revert? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that a revert which includes minor changes (such as spelling changes and capitalisation) is still a revert. The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent revert wars, and clearly spelling changes don't make much difference to most such wars. I think a warning might be a sufficient rebuff for a first offence.-gadfium (talk) 03:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me too. The advantage of having people decide rather than machines is we can see through attempts to works the system. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear in the discussion at Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement that reverts that also make other changes should count for the purposes of the three-revert rule. For example, see my vote on that page. It shouldn't matter whether the other changes mixed in with a revert are major or minor, it's still a revert. However, I have just checked back at Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement#Spirit vs. letter of the 3RR and Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement#Mixing reverts and significant edit, and things no longer seem as clear as I had remembered. I would support a clarification to the 3RR saying that a revert mixed with other changes is still a revert. —AlanBarrett 17:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a revert mixed with changes is still a revert; if someone wants to make unrelated changes, they can certainly do so in a separate edit. And indeed, if someone were to do the revert change, and then make other unrelated changes, they would definitely be blocked under the 3RR. Most admins I have seen have been interpreting revert+edits as a revert. Jayjg 20:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the key word here is "unrelated" changes, because those are just cosmetic and an attempt to get around the rule. Substantive and/or responsive changes whether contiguous with the disputed text or not, as is appropriate to the article and issues involved, should not count as a revert. I propose also, that in the interest of community, mere deletion reverts be treated more critically, since unless the additions were vandalism, the assumption should be they are good faith contributions.--Silverback 04:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Users have used this exact excuse to get around the rule before; on the fourth revert, re-inserting a disputed paragraph, while making substantial edits to other sections. If they want to make their substantial edits to the other sections in good faith, they can certainly make them in a separate edit. Re-insertion of disputed text along with other major edits is bad faith. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it is a related and substantive change, as in the case I have in mind, it wouldn't make sense to make the other major edit separately from the insertion, they would be somehow supportive of each other or make a connection that is responsive to stated objections, the opposite of bad faith.--Silverback 05:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's crystal clear to me that if we don't consider a "reversion+edits" as a reversion, to count toward the 3RR, we might as well ditch the 3RR rule - because otherwise everyone will make an edit as well, every time they do a revert, and will thereby avoid ever triggering the 3RR. Noel (talk) 04:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have raised this issue (that unless a revert+edit counts as a revert, the 3RR is a dead letter) at Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule#Edits and reversions; comment there would be welcome. Noel (talk) 23:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It will take judgement. Substantive and/or responsive changes (responsive to edit summary or talk page points). Minor changes, such as adding a wikilink that addresses issues raised can be substantive and responsive.--Silverback 04:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In most cases I've seen, it's just an attempt to get around the 3RR. I suppose it's possible in some cases that it's not, and admins should always attempt to exercise good judgement in all situations, of course. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On another note, we need a specific place to report 3RR violations (e.g. not on the talk pages of large numbers of individual sysops). If there were a particular page (Wikipedia:Excessive reversions in progress? Wikipedia:3RR violations?) then people could discuss (quickly) which users did or didn't violate the 3RR. Pakaran (ark a pan) 20:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where to report three revert rule violations

What is the best way to alert administrators to 3 revert rule violations? Now that blocking is policy, should they be brought here so admins can deal with them? Jayjg 01:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think so. Offenders often feel that the opposing side cherry-picks admins sympathetic to their cause. Violations are typically obvious enough that any admin should be able to block infringing parties, and posting them here would unify any revert-count disputes in one place without having them sprawl across user pages. Cool Hand Luke 01:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good for now. If it picks up to be too much traffic here, we can move it to a separate page. Noel (talk) 07:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this where we report 3RR violations now? I tried to find a proper place for it (not wanting to block somebody over a dispute I am myself involved in). I ended up putting a note on WP:RFP (please see there). dab (ᛏ) 12:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe so; this place seems more appropriate IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFP probably isn't a good place, for several reasons. First, if a user violates the 3RR, the solution is to block them temporarily (repeated violations should be taken to ArbComm, who may ban them). Second, my sense is that policy was not to protect pages because of edit wars unless there's a really heated edit war among many parties, and two people warring doesn't meet that standard (and see the first point). Noel (talk) 18:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no, you are quite right. I think we will need a special page where people can request such blocks (this page doesn't seem an obvious choice) dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In line with User:Charm's point at WT:AN#Are people finding this useful? (which also resulted in the recent addition to header of this page), this sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Please propose a location for 3RR violation reports! Noel (talk) 16:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added a note to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule suggesting that violations be reported here. —AlanBarrett 17:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Handling 3RR violations

May I request that if someone deals with a 3RR violation reported in #Incidents, can they please drop us a short note here to say that they have done so? That way, others won't have to spend time looking at the case only to find out it has already been dealt with. Thanks! Noel (talk) 14:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problems

There seems to be a lot of images slowly being listed for copyright issues, with no prior warning on articles' talk pages which they pertain to. As such, it seems several articles have missing images and it's very difficult to track why they were removed. See Star Trek and Outpost (computer game) as examples. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Part of this, at least, may be related to the continued glitch of image pages too often not displaying what links there. Perhaps until the glitch is resolved, known pages an image appears in be listed on the image page when adding a Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images notice. -- Infrogmation 20:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of those images via either copyright problems or possibly unfree images should be unlikely - they are obviously fair use and I'd hope that nobody would delete them on the basis of simply an unsupported listing as possible problems - anyone deleting from the copyright issues areas should at least be able to recognise listings of images as obvious as these as without merit. Perhaps someone with an excess of zeal and lack of understanding of fair use? The previous possible copyvio requirement of removing the image from the article using it (and thereby letting those who watch the article know there is a problem) now seems missing. That's good (because fair use requires knowing where the image is and it used to be hard to find those uses after the image was removed) but bad because it doesn't notify those who are best placed to both know the status of the image and find a replacement. Adding a requirement of a notice on the talk page of the article seems a suitable replacement. While there's ongoing work on improving the reliability of the links to images, it's always necessary to use an image search to verify lack of use before deleting. Jamesday 22:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletion bugs

If you encounter an error - "Can't delete this article because it contains block-compressed revisions. This is a temporary situation which the developers are well aware of, and should be fixed within a month or two. Please mark the article for deletion and wait for a developer to fix our buggy software." - when trying to delete a page, replace its content with {{pending deletion}}, and protect it until the bug is fixed. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What are "block-compressed revisions"? Has anybody reported this bug? RickK 05:47, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a bug. It's a glitch :-) Old revisions (I think all those prior to December 2004) have been compressed in the database to save space. As a side effect, this makes deletion of revisions before Dec 2004—and hence articles created before that—impossible for the time being. A future software release will contain the fix that allows deletion of compressed revisions, and then such articles can be deleted. Lupo 07:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

James Day posted something about this a while back on the OpenFacts Wikipedia status board:

The compression of article old revisions is in progress. [...] The most visible sign after this has happened is likely to be the temporary inability to delete articles created earlier than 1 December 2004, done to ensure that there won't be any data loss with selective undeletion before full support for that is present in the software. The temporary workaround is to blank and protect the article. Developers will deal with any cases where actual legal action makes that insufficient. JamesDay 09:03 Jan 6, 2005 (CET)

So I guess we'll have to live without delete for a while. Think of it as seeing how life is for ordinary users! :-) Noel (talk) 14:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which Disruptions of VfD Merit Re-Listing?

In the process of closing discussion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tom Sutter, i noticed that the VfD-Cat tag (added as part of the VfD template) had been removed from Tom Sutter by an anon ed (Summary: "reinstated 'irrelevant stuff' as it is not irrelevant it is his entire hitting career!") in the process of an otherwise verbatim-et-literatim restoration of old material.

• Arguably, consulting the Cat page is a viable approach to seeing what is on VfD, avoiding the voluminous VfD-page mechanisms, and this action reduced exposure via the Cat to 18 hours instead of 120 or so.
• That alternate means of accessing VfD debates may never have been used, but we could only know that by polling everyone who ever votes on VfD.
• This particular vote was close (6 D, 4 K), so two more votes could have shifted the result.
• I prefer not to be the one to make the decision to give it another 5 days (especially without consultation) since i voted on what is otherwise the losing side.
• Where i've left it is with my closing rescinded, pending consultation (here).

--Jerzy(t) 06:50, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Hmmm. Although I'm something of a deletionist, I'm always in favour of taking enough time to make sure we have rough consensus. Generally, it doesn't matter if we wait a few extra days to delete something, if there's no harm involved (e.g. libel or other problematic material). So, in this case, I'd say there's no harm in waiting, after adding it back to the category. Noel (talk) 13:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, i find myself more concerned about whether this is part of any pattern than with handling the individual instance correctly. Have others noticed removals of the VfD-Cat tag? Do others think they would have noticed them if they've been occurring (or is my noticing the result of my meticulous attention to detail? Is this worth adding something like the following to Wikipedia:Deletion process?:

Before marking the VfD subpage closed, please note whether the Category:Pages on votes for deletion tag is intact; if not, please either skip closing that debate, or note the fact at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Which Disruptions of VfD Merit Re-Listing? during your closing process.

--Jerzy(t) 18:08, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I wouldn't refer to this specific header (#Which Disruptions of VfD Merit Re-Listing?) because it's likely to be gone (archived) in a few days. Noel (talk) 12:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vfd tags are often removed from pages, but generally within a few hours of tagging (which itsself is usually within a few minutes of page creation). I think in almost all cases they get restored pretty quickly (most people have "add edited pages to watchlist" turned on, so the removal turns up in their watchlist), but there may be some that slip through the net. --fvw* 18:17, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I routinely spot and revert instances of anon vandalism to VfD subpages or tags when in RC patrol. If we were to re-list or even extend the voting time in every case it would be a maintenance nightmare. I'd say it is enough if the entry remains listed in the main VfD page and the subpage stays readable most of the time; in cases of persistent vandalism that seriously hinders voting, allow it remain listed for extra few days after blocking/reverting. Your suggested wording in policy would just encourage trolls to stealthly remove the cat. tag and then pester everyone with their claims for extra voting round, admin abuse, or trolling in VfU. jni 12:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Introduction

This has replaced Introduction 2 as the intended place for test-editing, so there's no need to revert apparent nonsense unless it's profane or offensive, though it might be a good idea to check every once in a while to see that the first two lines are intact:

{{Please leave this line alone}}
<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. -->

Thanks a bunch! [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Incidents

User talk:Arminius

A minor problem I'm hoping someone can lend a hand with.

• At 13:48, Dec 31, 2004, Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius with comment time to go.
• At 03:23, Jan 13, 2005, Wolfman asked for the undeletion of User talk:Arminius, at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#User talk:Arminius.
• At 04:14, Jan 13, 2005, I restored the history of User talk:Arminius and left this message on it:

  Hi Arminus,

  Your own pages aren't actually candidates for speedy, believe it or not, so I undeleted your page history per the request on VfU. However, number 7 of the "Other pages" category on CSD is "User and talk pages on request of the user, where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the page. A redirect (to the user's new name, or to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians) should be created to avoid red links and confusion."

  So if you want the page deleted again, let me (or any other admin) know. —Ben Brockert (42) 04:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• At 11:20, Jan 13, 2005, Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius with no comment.
• At 03:29, Jan 14, 2005, I restored User talk:Arminius with no comment.
• At 12:15, Jan 14, 2005, Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius with no comment.

Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? is explicit that an admin should not delete their own pages. It for the same reason we shouldn't block ourselves or protect our own pages. There was apparently an arbitration case against Arminius, which is why Wolfman wanted the history kept. I have no reason to get into a history war with an admin I know nothing about; the only reason I'm involved is because I watch VfU. If he had done as I asked, I would support the deletion of his talk page, but his actions make me wary, and I wonder if it would be best if the page history was kept. Please review the linked pages, and opine. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have undeleted the page and left a message for Arminius, asking him to tag it for someone else to delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree with Arminius on the interpretation that admins can delete their own pages, however if there was community consensus to undelete them, they should be undeleted. --fvw* 18:03, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Policy states that user pages cannot be speedied upon objection. I have objected. From Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?: "If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user and user talk page." (emphasis added) Wolfman 20:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's fine by me, I just don't quite agree with the "admins can't delete their own pages" interpretation. In this case, it's definately up to the community instead of unilateral actions. --fvw* 05:06, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

• If there is indeed an arbitration case ongoing against Arminius as suggested above, his talk page should be retained for administrative purposes. Mgm|^(talk) 19:22, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration case was closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arminius with the comment "as long as Arminius realizes that future misconduct would be dealt with far more severely (as a second offense, so to speak)". An important part of the evidence in that case refered to discussions on the talk page. While the case is closed, there is no good reason to delete the evidentiary history. I seriously doubt any non-admin would be allowed to do so. There is even less reason to allow an admin to delete such history since the case concerned abuse of admin privileges. Note that it's the deletion of history that I object to, not the deletion of page content. Wolfman 01:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, technically a pre-emptive objection is not itself enough to prevent deletion of a user page requested by the user. That would allow any grudge holder to effectively permanently deny another user a common right simply by objecting and never rescinding the objection. Any decision of that nature should be made by community consensus. Normally (barring evidence of policy violations) a user page may be deleted and the objection handled after, along the lines of Objection, automatic undeletion, VfD. Wolfman is correct, though, in pointing out that this talk page contains evidence of policy violations. That in itself is a show-stopper. If this were a regular user, I would advocate deleting the history (available for undeletion if another case is brought before the next database purge) since the evidence relates to a closed case and since the user's conduct during the case was exemplary. I cannot so advocate in this case, however, since the history involves alleged abuse of admin privileges. If no cases are brought against him within six months of the close of the last one, I would advocate allowing the deletion of the history. For the moment, since deletion, objection, and undeletion have taken place, the next step is VfD. SWAdair | Talk 07:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate (I guess) Wolfman's continued passion for vengence because I blocked him for one of his offenses. The arbcom case was dropped because ultimately it was not seen as worthy by review not only by the arbcom but by both signatories to the original case, based on my conduct after. Also its important to note the only real issue was my conduct with Chameleon. Eitherway, the history of statements is documented in the archive, despite the evidence not being relevant, as the case was dropped. Perhaps people should focus on wikipedia.

Important to note that the talk page is not really deleted as such as the history can be reivewed or restored by admins..obviously. This whole little episode is pretty silly, no evidence is lost and this is often done by admins. Not only that, the arbcom case was dropped this is merely an effort to exert control over my talk page by a user with issues. Perhaps this could be relevant had I actually faced censure or been involved in a current dispute in which the extensive history of my talk page was relevant..maybe. I deleted the talk page and started over as I was playing with my own page format (something just about ever user does particularly admins) not to "hide" a well documented non-event.

Wolfman, I assure you, anything that is done on wikipedia is documented somewhere (in this case a few places) so if want to continue your witchhunt or misdirect your own personal issues with yourself towards me, you will have ease in gathering meaningless evidence.

Personally, I don't much give a crap at this point about whether the page is deleted or not but I would like it to be or at least to the point orginally before undeleted for my conveinence. I'm not going to be on the wiki much do to more important obligations in my real life, I think the well meaning admins who unfortunetly got dragged into this rather odd episode would better spend their time editing or patroling wikipedia productively as it seems to be their custom, and Wolfman better to edit wikipedia or even better Get a Life. ;) Arm 12:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking

I blocked Everyking for 24 hours for violating the 3RR rule on Pieces of Me, but since he's an Admin, he continues to edit. What can we do about this? RickK 07:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Put it in the Arbitration complaint. Neutrality^talk 07:17, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

such things should not happen. Admins have to abide by the rules. Seriously. If this sort of thing becomes common, we'll need clear de-sysopping guidelines soon. dab (ᛏ) 07:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If he has been blocked and continues to edit, then we will need to consider filing an RFC on him under the admin section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the arbitration case trumps an RFC, doesn't it? I agree with dab that we need a Rf(de-)A policy. —Ben Brockert (42) 08:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

It would take evidence of specific abuse of admin powers in the arbitration case for the arbcom to act. In past cases, admins have been asked to reapply at WP:RFA - David Gerard 23:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be in line with his belief that "I have a 5,000 page watchlist to tend to; the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long." silsor 08:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

of course, WP needs its addicts. But an admin cannot go around violating the 3RR, much less ignore being blocked (I suppose it's technically feasible to make blocks of admins effective. It would just be sad to admit such an implementation is even necessary). You would think a 5000 page watchlist should leave no time for edit wars... I'm not saying "de-admin Everyking", mind you, I have not looked at the details. But in case he insists the rules don't apply to him, well, he can also tend his watchlist without admin powers. dab (ᛏ) 08:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

His statement: "the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long." is rather worrying. I have opposed the RFC on Everyking, feeling that the problem was one that could be solved by normal editing (that is proving true on Autobiography, the Ashlee Simpson album). But this incident gives me concern that he feels enabled to make unilateral decisions because of his perception that his continued functioning as an editor is a paramount consideration for the welfare of the Wikipedia project. No one editor is that essential. He's apparently on his way to becoming a rogue administrator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony. I'm only familiar with the Ashlee Simpsons dispute in passing, not involved, but in my opinion it pales next to Everyking's behavior re the block. A rogue admin would be a serious threat to WP's integrity. Forgive me if I sound incredulous here, but aren't there any measures available for dealing with admins? Khanartist 09:26, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • well, if an admin went on a vandal spree, he could be emergency-de-adminned by a bureaucrat. Did ek actually say "the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long." (diff?), or is this a paraphrase? Obviously, nobody is that essential to the project. Some people are more important to it than others, of course, but as long as the foundation persists, and remains in possession of servers and bandwith, WP will continue to prosper. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive3. A text search for "project" should bring it up. I'd provide a diff but I would defy any human being to dig through the quagmire that is that talk page's history without losing their sanity. →Reene^✎ 10:20, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • As the comment is nicely timestamped, it was a matter of some 30 seconds to locate the diff: [1]. Lupo 10:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • You're right, of course. I didn't even think about timestamps. I'll have to keep this in mind for the future if I ever need to dig up a comment in a talk page again. →Reene^✎ 02:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. So it appears that he was specifically referring to a 24-hour block for 3RR violation, the possibility of which had been raised owing to his propensity for near-3RR editing. I believe that it was later that he boasted about his ability to perform four reverts in twenty-four hours and one minute with impunity (this kind of margin-testing is a practice that I think is so wildly provocative as to merit a blocking in itself; then again I think the 3RR is far too lenient in the first place.) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is hardly the behaviour we're looking for in an admin, and I imagine he would have some trouble passing RFA at this moment. dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think someone on the mailing list pointed out that all or most of the entries in the edit list attributed to Everyking since he was blocked are due to his use of the admin rollback feature (which is not blocked). It was also stated that his use of the feature seemed to be sensible. In the light of this, I withdraw my speculation that he may be turning rogue and apologise to Everyking. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Everyking. His original 24 hrs block is up as of now. He did not revert Pieces of Me a 5th time as was stated in the second block comment. It seems the issue of using rollback on unrelated articles while blocked needs a policy clarification. I'm quite of the mind that this is actually a good way for an admin to atone for whatever it was that got him/her blocked in the first place - as long, of course, as it is only used to rollback simple vandalism and not anything even remotely related to the blocking issue (or that requires talk page edits). But others are of the opinion that no edits should be allowed - whether using rollback or otherwise - so this needs discussing -- sannse (talk) 01:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify - Silsor actually unblocked shortly before me, for the same reasons -- sannse (talk) 01:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the best place to discuss it would be, but I, for one, believe admins who are blocked should have the same edit rights as normal users who are blocked, i.e. none, not even rolling back edits. I understand the reasons that admins retain the ability to block and unblock (see WP:BP), but I do not agree that they should be given special editing privileges. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked admins should lose the ability to rollback, since this is a loophole in page editing blocks. silsor 01:49, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't violate the 3RR, except according to an extremely liberal interpretation of the 3RR that counts as a revert any change to the text that matches an old version and not a newer version. So basically: other user deletes half the article. I restore that half. That goes on three times. Then, since I'm mindful of the rule, I just restore part of one paragraph, a small portion of my preferred version. And Rick blocks me. And then, since I'm blocked, the only way I can continue to contribute for 24 hours is to do RC patrol for vandalism using rollback. And Rick, apparently, has a problem with that. Well, I don't know what to say. Everyking 07:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not an 'extremely liberal interpretation', that's an entirely valid interpretation - people gaming the 3RR have been (quite justifiably IMO) nailed on that one plenty before. Adding a fragmentary paragraph doesn't make it not a reversion, either - David Gerard 08:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not a revert. It's a partial restoration of content. We should probably add something saying that the 3RR is not limited to just reverts; an admin can decide pretty much anything is a revert, depending on his or her interpretation. And I think Rick ought to apologize to me for extending my block while accusing me of reverting a fifth time when I hadn't even touched the article since his initial block. It almost appears he's throwing accusations around just to make me look bad. Everyking 08:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with David on this. "Other user deletes half the article. I restore that half" is unequivocally a description of one instance of a revert. You may want to make excuses for that revert, and it may be for the ebst of reasons, but it's still a revert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, read what I wrote again. Everyking 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no intentions of apologizing. You might check not only this page, but the RfA against you and the mailing list, and you'll see that everybody agrees that your behavior is unacceptable. You might want to consider apologizing, yourself. RickK 08:40, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pleae note that admins are authorised to block edits. Your ability to block an admin is not an authorisation for you to desysop that admin for 24 hours. Kindly stop acting as though it is. Jamesday 23:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't help it if some folks don't like me. Such is life. But I did not violate policy, and I think I deserve an apology for being blocked, and an additional apology for having my block extended for no reason. I think that would be a good gesture of civility on your part. An atmosphere of threats and harshness doesn't do any good for anybody. Everyking 09:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those who are wondering what all this discussion is about, this is the edit that was made right before Everyking's THINGIE (since it is apparently not a revert), and this is the THINGIE which led to him being blocked for 3RR violation. Make up your own minds and give this topic a rest, please. silsor 09:36, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Partial restoration of content"—that's what you were looking for. Well, I don't know. Earlier people were suggesting I should be desysoped just for rolling back some blatant vandalism. If you were in my position—blocked despite following policy; block extended on an obviously false charge; threatened with desysoping for fighting vandalism—do you think you might be a little bit angry or offended? Do you think you might want an apology? Everyking 10:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ek, you seem to have a rather private interpretation of '3RR' and 'vandalism'. Vandals usually don't argue their edits on talk pages. And 'partial restorations' count as reverts, too, you may want to re-read the policy. Now, I'm not saying you acted in bad faith. You need accept that the same rules apply to you as to everybody else, especially as an admin, even if you don't like it when somebody cuts some of your text from an article. Also, a block is a block. If it had been clearly an inappropriate block, somebody would have unblocked you. You are free to start a complaint against Rick, but as an admin, you need to have the good grace to bear a block without exploiting you privileges. dab (ᛏ) 10:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They weren't arguing their points. They were just blanking articles and writing profanity and such. Who disagrees with me that that is vandalism? Everyking 11:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The statement that those whose edits you have been reverting on various articles related to Ashlee Simpson "weren't arguing their points. They were just blanking articles and writing profanity and such" is a false and disgraceful statement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My statement had nothing to do with Ashlee Simpson articles. Please stop with your pretenses of outrage. It is very irritating. Everyking 12:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My feelings about your activities long went past outrage and reached a state of resigned despair. And here you go again. Dbachmann specifically referred to the reverts: you seem to have a rather private interpretation of '3RR' and 'vandalism'. Vandals usually don't argue their edits on talk pages. And 'partial restorations' count as reverts, too, you may want to re-read the policy. Now, I'm not saying you acted in bad faith. You need accept that the same rules apply to you as to everybody else, especially as an admin, even if you don't like it when somebody cuts some of your text from an article.

Now you falsely claim that his statement that those who were reverting were arguing on the talk page was false, and when I point out that it was false you switch (as others have noted) to talking about your activities after the block, which were indeed directed against vandals. Please stop this, it's timewasting, has the air of deliberate obfuscation, and I don't think it's advancing your case in any way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I assumed that when he mentioned vandals he could only mean the vandals I rolled back, because I had not called anyone else a vandal. Is that not obvious? And the vandals did not discuss; they blanked pages and added profanity. It all seems very simple to me. Presumably Dbachmann was confused and thought I had used rollback against my opponents in the dispute, and he was thinking I was saying that I was calling my opponents vandals, and was saying that vandals don't discuss—because you all have been discussing. I pointed out that the vandals had not been discussing and pointed out what they had been doing; I was pointing out the difference between those I rolled back and those I reverted ordinarily prior to being blocked. It seems you are always ready to assume bad faith with me, even when it takes incomprehensible logic to do so. Do you seriously believe I was calling you a vandal and saying that you had replaced text with profanity? Are we in the same dimension here? Everyking 13:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uh, hello? You called Reene a vandal and worse. Have you not read the evidence presented in the RFAr against you? Here's just one diff where you compare reverting Reene 30 times to reverting a page blanking 30 times: [2]. I'd say our suspicion was well-justified. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then pray tell, what were you talking about? Johnleemk | Talk 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism, John. The stuff I was rolling back while blocked. Did you read all the stuff above? Everyking 12:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When Everyking begins his defense of his rollbacks, he segues into non-Ashlee Simpson articles, but earlier in the thread, silsor shows that the vandalism rollbacks were not the cause of the block, while the Ashlee Simpson reverts were. This subject is very complex, and it's probably best that everybody specify which actions they're referring to. As it is, we're mixing and matching the AS/block reverts and the rollback/after-block actions in the same thread.Khanartist 12:36, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

The rollbacks are completely distinct from the Ashlee stuff. Rick blocked me from editing for supposedly reverting four times on Pieces of Me. Not using rollback, though, just normal reverts. Then, once I was blocked, the only way I could think of to still contribute was to do RC patrol against vandalism, and I rolled back a lot of it. Page blanking and profanity and such. Then Rick came here and complained about that, although I'm not sure why. So I was defending my use of rollbacks against vandalism while under Rick's block. Although frankly I can't understand why I need to defend that. Everyking 12:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because, as has been pointed out several times already, a block is a block and it might have been prudent to honour the block. I think nobody is saying you did anything bad while rolling back vandalism, but pretty much everyone seems to agree that admins should follow the rules just like any other user and not edit anything while they're blocked. -- Ferkelparade π 12:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would never have dreamed such a thing was against the rules. In fact, I don't believe it, and I'd need to see some kind of proof. User:Jamesday said some things on Rick's talk page to the opposite effect; that there was a deliberate purpose to allowing admins to do admin work even while blocked from normal editing. Everyking 13:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it seems in fact to be the case that admins were deliberatly granted access to the rollback feature even when blocked. But, you know, it seems to defeat the point of a block for violation of the 3RR, somehow, if the subject of the block is allowed to continue ... reverting stuff. That said, as long as ek kept away from reverting the disputed article during his block, we may argue that he did honour the block. dab (ᛏ) 13:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not that admins were not granted access after being blocked. Blocking came after admins and blocking was deliberately limited in effects. A block is not, and is not intended to be, a temporary desysopping. Remember that admins are supposed to be addressing conduct only. If a block is effective in ending a revert war, that's all that's required. Though why a block was used instead of page protection, when only one page appears to have been involved, puzzles me, since it seems excessive for the purpose. Jamesday 23:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, from what you've said above, are we to conclude that you consider removal of any material from Wikipedia vandalism? I've seen that you have shown good judgement elsewhere on Wikipedia, so this is the only explanation I can think of that would explain your actions concerning the Ashley Simpson articles. -- llywrch 23:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. I disagree with the removal of the information from the Ashlee articles, but I do not consider it vandalism. It's a content dispute. Everyking 00:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then please refrain from calling those who disagree with you on those pages "vandals". RickK 01:09, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever done so. Early on I may have once or twice referred to the deletion of large portions of the article as vandalism, but I don't stand by that. Everyking 01:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would you please explain this comment then? There's really no question that you've been launching personal attacks against people you perceive to be "destroying" your article since close to the beginning of this fiasco, up to and including accusing them of vandalism/being vandals. →Reene^✎ 02:07, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I was expressing my feelings a little too openly. I apologize. Everyking 02:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, as someone whose interaction with this article has been limited to passively reading it (& shaking my head over the content of the Talk pages), in the state you work to keep it I find the article hard to read. Data needs to be pruned from this article to make it accessible to the casual readers -- like me. You can argue all you want about how every detail needs to be kept in these articles to make them worthy of WP:FAC, but you've included more material about Ashley Simpson than I would want to know even about the bands I am devoted to. -- llywrch 04:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason we have summary style, you know. It's not good, as I see it, to "prune" notable, relevant information. Any subject could perhaps be described in two sentences, but that doesn't mean one would want to describe it in two sentences only, if it's worth a few volumes. Such a description would be woefully inadequate and would leave the reader disappointed and force him or her to look elsewhere for his or her information. There was an intro for the simple basics. Then there were sections for details. And then there were subarticles for more details. Just a standard system. I really quite strongly disagree with the idea that some of the content is nonnotable. People have been accusing me of adding trivia, but the fact is that I've consciously avoided that. There is a level at which something can be comprehensive without going into trivial detail, and that's what I was aiming for. Everyking 05:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus is that your aim is off. By quite a bit. I haven't seen anything notable pruned by anyone yet, though unnotable stuff has certainly been added in. —Ben Brockert (42) 05:25, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important point here. There is a consensus among current participants in the dispute that the old versions were too large, with too much detail, yes. But was there a consensus to remove 80-90% of the content? I think not. People just wanted it to be a bit trimmed, and some people wanted certain areas to actually be expanded. But unfortunately the dispute has led to the intervention of some editors who are far more deletionist than any of the initial participants, and these are the people who have been reducing the articles to stubs. I regret that I was not more open to cutting a bad deal early in the game, when the articles might have been worsened but only to a moderate degree. Instead I kept fighting and got the radicals drawn in, and now the articles appear to be doomed. So what I'm getting at is that you're not seeing the notion of consensus here for what it really is. Everyking 06:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. No problem, we have lots of those. The point of this discussion was ek's behaviour during his block. It seems now that it is legitimate for an admin to do vandalism rollbacks during his being blocked for 3RR violation, as long as they are unrelated to the dispute which led to his being blocked. I did not know that, but ek seems to have honoured the block, so I apologize to him for speculating that he may have done otherwise. dab (ᛏ) 16:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many of us didn't know either. It seems that the need to block administrators is rarely invoked. Peter O. (Talk) 17:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Rick, I don't think you should try blocking an admin. Also, you have a habit of rubbing people the wrong way. To be fair, I also have that habit - but the difference is a back off, apologize, and try to undo the damage each time I mess up. Please follow my example!

Everyking, if you feel as an admin the need to revert the same edit more than three times, maybe you should enlist the help of another admin or two: take turns doing the revert, so you won't be violating the rule.

To all: our rules are not meant to favor trolls or others who seek to flout our policies. Sometimes bold action is required. But let's try to stick together and help each other, okay? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:26, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Admins are not exempt from the rules. Everyking violated the 3R rule, and was rightly blocked for doing so. Also, I suspect you may want to read a little more of the backstory of this issue (Everyking's RFC would be a good place to start), the problem is that there aren't any other editors (let alone other admins) who agree. Sticking together here just because he's an admin is equal to cabalism, and luckily this isn't happening. --fvw* 18:31, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I didn't revert more than three times; I did partially restore some deleted content, but this was not evasion as it is being described as much as "feeling out" what would be acceptable to the other parties involved, in addition to not wanting the article to be devoid of detail. However, I will no longer engage in any reverting or any partial restorations of content on Ashlee articles if I encounter opposition. Everyking 18:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All, please note that a block is only and deliberately a block on the successful use of the edit this page feature. It is not a ban from all use of the site - it's simply one tool to try to end a possible edit war. If you want to get a 24 hour removal of admin capabilities, that's a different thing and deliberately outside the capabilities admins have. Abuse might be something like using a rollback to continue whaver prompted the block in the first place, or blocking the other participant(s) in that dispute, which could be a quick route to having the sysop capability temporarily removed as well. Remember we're about "stop the problematic behavior", not "punish this person". "Punish" is something no admin is authorised to do - if you find yourself thinking that way about a situation, it's time to let another admin deal with ending the conduct. Jamesday 23:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Persistent page vandalism by 69.143.195.107

From approximately 18 Dec 2004 to 18 Jan 2005, User:69.143.195.107 made 32 edits, most of which were serious vandalism. The user was warned on his talk page on 31 Dec 2004 but hasn't stopped. Vandalism has ranged the gamut from racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Any help on this matter is appreciated. --Viriditas | Talk 09:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On their talk page, the sternest warning they got was a {test2}. The vandalism looked more like juvenile delinguincy than a serious attempt to mess things up, so I elected to put a {test4} warning on their talk page, and let it go at that for now. The next time they vandalize, hit them with a one-month block (they only seem to come by irregularly, so anything less they might not notice). Noel (talk) 12:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Open proxies?

Can someone please check whether 193.188.105.16 and 193.188.105.17 are open proxies and block them indefinitely, if so? (I've blocked them for 24 hours for vandalism.) I cannot check it myself right now. These IPs seem to belong to some Bahraini ISP. Lupo 11:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They don't seem to be (at least not on ports 80 or 8080), but note that many many others in the 193.188.105.* range are listed on stayinvisible. —Korath (Talk) 11:29, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hm, one should also check other ports: 81, 1080, 3128 (SOCKS proxies). Furthermore, the same vandal (Willy on Wheels-related) returned through 148.244.150.57 somewhere in South America. Can someone check these IPs thoroughly? Lupo 12:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that you won't see his vandalism in his contribs. He created user pages for existing users who didn't yet have a user page (User:Robert Blair, User:Baffclan, User:Ekaterin, User:Avinashswamy, and User:Velho) and also Category:Cheese sandwiches and Fvw, which I've all deleted again. All user pages had the same content: an elaborate sockpuppet warning that the account belonged to Willy on Wheels, falsely signed by RickK. Lupo 13:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Yup, open proxies. I've blocked them, or at least I will once this infernal lag dies down. Feel free to just put this kind of stuff on my talk page in future (unless there's a big hurry and I'm not around); I'm hacking on some proxy detection stuff anyway so I kind of like to know what's going on in open-proxy land. --fvw* 16:28, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  It appears that your blocks have not taken. They are listed on Special:Log/block, but don't show up on Special:Ipblocklist, and I don't see any unblocking. At least 193.188.105.16 did edit after your block. I've re-blocked all three IPs (indefinite, msg {{BlockedProxy}}). Lupo 11:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. I had blocked them first, but only for 24h. The first block is effective! Thus, to change an existing block, unblock first and then re-block! Lupo 11:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation on Melissa Joan Hart

Could an admin have a look at Melissa Joan Hart, as I see it User:204.193.6.90 has violated the 3RR rule there (I'm involved with the content dispute). --fvw* 17:26, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Oops, scratch that, my apologies to User:204.193.6.90, I misread a close IP as being the same user (it could be, but I have no evidence of that). --fvw* 17:30, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

• Now User:204.193.6.90 has violated the 3RR, would someone do the honours please? I don't think that last edit actually needs reverting, it's a perfectly good link; Still, a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation. --fvw* 23:03, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like they managed to avoid breaking 3RR by about 45 minutes; am I calculating incorrectly? Jayjg | (Talk) 23:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Ungh yes, the user was defending the revert with "I didn't do it, I had one of my friends do it" on the talk page, and I forgot to check exact time stamps. I'm beginning to turn into the boy who cried 3RR! here, I'm taking this item off my watchlist for a bit and going to bed. Apologies to all for this spammy non-incident, and thanks for the correction. --fvw* 23:22, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
      • There's a current discussion on the mailing list about the spirit vs. the letter of the law on the 3 RR policy, and consensus there seems to be that 4 reverts in less than 25 hours, or even maybe more, is grounds for blocking. RickK 00:14, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd argue that consensus is still a little nebulous -- I don't know that it can be stated as boldly as Rick just did (though I agree with the statement he makes, and I think he's right that at least the voices on the mailing list are moving towards that consensus). What I think is clear is that the community consensus (with an important but small minority opposed) is that reverts are a really sucky way of interacting here and we're irritated enough by them that we don't want the 3RR to be interpreted as "keep pushing 3 reverts a day, every day, until you get your way". So users who watch the clock and start punching in reverts once the 24 hours is up are irritating most of the community, and if they do this with any frequency, I'd say the community would probably not complain if (after careful and clear repeated warnings about exactly what the consequences were) that kind of users got put in the timeout corner for a day. I know if I had reverted three times, and then waited until 24:30 after my first revert to revert again (thinking how cleverly I'd gamed the system), it wouldn't shock me (though I might whine a bit) to be blocked as violating Wikiquette and general good faith. But that's just me. Jwrosenzweig 00:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Don't we have any provision somewhere that would state that such deliberate gaming of the system in itself constitutes a blockable offense? Lupo 08:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Not quite, I think - we seem to have rough admin consensus, not policy, that it's gaming the system. One should always be open to discussion on the matter and another admin may well unblock them if they think your block is unfair, but they can do that anyway - David Gerard 15:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation on Charles Darwin

User:Vfp15 has violated 3RR on this article and, in line with policy, has to be blocked for 24 hours by an admin. Thanks.

Reverts:

1 - 01:17, 19 Jan 2005

2 - 03:55, 19 Jan 2005

3 - 08:19, 19 Jan 2005

4 - 00:31, 20 Jan 2005

--Mrfixter 01:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours by Rhobite. SWAdair | Talk 11:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mrfixter 11:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carrp

This user was blocked by Danny for removing material from current events which was added by Belizian. However, Belizian did not cite sources for the majority of his additions, and no warning was given to Carrp. In addition, the events removed by Carrp (material related to striking in Belize) were not on Google News's World section. I have not unblocked Carrp, but I thought it might be wise to ask for input from others. Johnleemk | Talk 19:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's ludicrous! Blocks are not a way of handling content disputes. I would definately support unblocking Carrp, and would suggest that Danny read the blocking policy. --fvw* 19:28, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I have unblocked User:Carrp. --fvw* 20:01, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I support your action. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can support Belizian as being an excellent and mature contributor. Oh, and I also owe him ten bucks.... silsor 02:55, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

the following comment moved from my talk page --fvw* 20:16, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

It is quite obvious to me that you know very little about what happened but nonetheless chose to take matters into your own hands. Not a very commendable act for a sysop, but then you are so new--to Wikipedia and to sysophood--that I can hardly expect you to know your ass from your elbow. So, here it is. I did not block in a content dispute in which I was involved. I blocked because Carrp was deleting important information--breaking news, as a matter of fact, about a revolution in Central America, given by a trusted user before he left the capital with his wife. He could not find any information about it on Google, so he decided to erase it. Johnleemk then came to the mistaken conclusion that this was "original research," not actually knowing what the parameters of original research are, or what that rule was intended for. As for blocking without a warning, yes, I did that. This was a clear case of vandalism to content that was unique to Wikipedia and important. I have no compunctions about doing that, I have done so for the past three years, and will continue to do so if I feel someone is vandalizing important content. Danny 20:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An action is never block-justifying vandalism if it is done in good faith - and nobody should be blocked for a good faith action without a warning. I support fvw's action too. Thue | talk 20:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the issue was more complex than I thought. However, I don't think it is clear-cut vandalism, and I think a warning would have helped. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you cannot go around blocking people for edits you don't like, additions or removals. I sense a tendency of admins becoming more trigger-happy, recently... Danny should re-read policy, and especially what is considered vandalism on WP. I warning would have been the very least. You have the rollback button: use that first. dab (ᛏ) 22:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary source, and neither is a "trusted user" of Wikipedia. This block was without grounds, and outside of policy. I fear Danny may not be in touch with current policies by which admins should hold themselves. -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

I happen to think our policy on sources is a little too restrictive (there are lots of people who know useful data which isn't in a book), but... I think it's unreasonable to describe removing material which cannot be verified as "vandalism", and therefore feel that any block was unjustified. Noel (talk) 03:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add my side of the story. I believe that this whole situation was due to several misunderstandings.

For my part, I should have made a greater effort to understand what Belizian was posting. I do now understand that he was posting a legitimate breaking news story. However, this was very difficult to see from the original summary [3] which was extremely long for a Current Events summary and had numerous spelling errors. The story didn't get any hits on Google news and the source provided by Belizian was a week old. Also, this source didn't appear to be especially reputable upon initial inspection as many of the headlines ended in exclamation points (ex: "Castrate, cut penis off, hang, whip, torture rapists and child molesters!"). All in all, it did not seem to belong on the Current Events page. I removed the summary, only to see Belizian repost it. In an attempt to avoid a revert war, I wrote a message on Belizian's talk page User Talk: Belizian explaining why I believed his story didn't belong on Current Events. I removed the story again and was blocked shortly thereafter.

For Danny's part, I believe he could have spent more time examining the situation instead of blocking as his first (and only) action. I never received a warning or an explanation of what I had done wrong, either before or after I was blocked. When I noticed that I had been blocked, I emailed Danny to ask why I had been blocked. I asked him to look at the diffs and requested that I be unblocked. Within a minute or two, Danny replied with one word: "No". There were no explanations or answers to my questions. I emailed Danny again, asking him to expand on his "No", but never received a reply. I then emailed several other admins asked them to review the matter.

For Belizian's part, I think he could have done a better job explaining that he was reporting first-hand information. This is unusual on the Current Events page since the vast majority of stories are from media sources. A short note on the talk page could have prevented many, if not all, of these problems.

I'm really not very happy with the way this situation was handled or with Danny's attitude towards the admin (User:fvw) who finally saw the absurdity and unblocked me. I'm going to take a Wikibreak but I will likely return sometime in the future. Thanks for listening. Carrp 03:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP is not bloody CNN, we do not need 'breaking news' before any other site has it. If we allow 'first hand accounts', we are open to all sorts of hoaxes. Even if this was a 'trusted user', there is no reason for a sysop, especially an experienced one, to block someone for a good faith edit instead of reverting, expalaining and/or warning. PS, I realize Belizian is a good contributor. But Carrp did put a polite explanation of his removal on his talk page. He could easily have reverted and explained. I do not see any reason for a block here for miles around. dab (ᛏ) 09:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just what I was going to say. This was a ridiculous use of sysop blocking power and deserves, at the very least, an apology. Filiocht 10:17, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Danny also blocked me yesterday and is refusing to say why other than 'trolling', he has not pointed to anything specific. And trolling isn't even mentioned in the blocking policy. I believe a recall process should be established for admins who routinely abuse their powers like Danny and Rhobite. Ollieplatt 10:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which most people would (I believe) take to cover trolling. And there is a recall process - the arbitration process can (and had) removed admin powers from people. Noel (talk) 12:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'trolling' is slang for 'disrupting (without even making a point)', and Ollie is a very good example of that. dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And where there is consensus that someone is trolling, they should be banned, for at least a month IMHO. Filiocht 11:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, a month might be a bit harsh. It depends on the facts of the case. (In some, I'd go higher.) Noel (talk) 12:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it funny to read the bloody google argument. Since when has google become god for verifying information? Danny is a respected user and so is Belizian. Danny had reason to block as vandalism was in progress. He should have done it for a shorter period like 2 or 3 hours maybe. User Carpp was deleting information plain and simple. And at those kind of moments the following goes: wikipedia is intended to build an accurate and up-to-date encyclopedia. it is not an exercise in democracy. With the emphasis on up to date. Current events might have been the wrong place, but since nobody had started a Revolution in Belize in 2005 article yet it was the only place to put it for now. I know most wikipedians do not consider a revolution in Belize worthy enough as they are to American/Euro centric in their thinking. There are no Europeans/Americans wounded or dying so nobody writes about it. Wikipedia is a project to accumalate ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE and not to accumalate ALL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WESTERN COUNTRIES AND OH YES WE MIGHT WANT TO PUT IN A BIT ON THE REST OF THE WORLD AS WELL. Although the block was to long, I still support Danny for doing that. I would have probably done the same. Vandalism is vandalism. And to the people yelling that Danny should have read the rules: he wrote half of them, just look at the history Waerth 12:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From reading Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not I was under the impression that Wikipedia was not a general knowledge base. Under the section "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base", it lists:

News reports. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news. See current events for examples.

I explained on Belizian's talk pages that I did not believe this belonged on the Current Events page. I never would have removed information from an article such as Revolution in Belize in 2005.

As for Google being 'god', I certainly don't believe that. However, when Google has zero mentions of a news story, a user should be mention why this story merits being posted on Current Events. As I mentioned above, a simple note from Belizian on the Current Events talk page could have avoided a lot of problems. Carrp 13:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Try editing current events. The comments there ask you to cite your sources. I disagree Carrp should have been blocked. He should have been told off, but there's no need to get reactionary about it. Btw, please don't shout; it makes you look immature (regardless of the veracity of your arguments). Oh, and lest I be accused of being an American/European capitalist/socialist pig, I'm an Asian who has never set foot in Europe or any of the Americas before. Johnleemk | Talk 13:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole western bias thing is a complete red herring here, I'm afraid. his is about a) blocking someone without warning and b) calling someone a vandal for making a good-faith edit deleting unverified material. As dab says above, this is not a breaking news site and all information posted must be verifiable. Filiocht 13:17, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

agree with Filiocht. How is having (co-)written the rules a reason bend them? Admins are janitors, and are not to abuse their powers in content disputes. They should also have the nerve to discuss first and revert (or block) later. Google is a source of sources, nothing else. If google doesn't know your source (e.g. printed material), just cite it, but cite your sources you must. This may have been a content dispute, but we don't know, because Danny didn't bother to ask. Maybe Carrp would just have said "fine, put it back", case solved. It certainly wasn't vandalism. dab (ᛏ) 13:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will react to all of you here instead of going to answer all different threads to keep a semblance of order. Waerth 13:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Filiocht it isn't a red herring. Wikipedia does have a bias on articles with regards to areas outside of the western intrest. I am struggling with it daily on nl: wikipedia for over a year, so are other Dutch users in other parts of the world editing on nl:. Here on English wikipedia someone asked me just today should we really mention all the stations on the Bangkok metro? What a stupid question offcourse we need to. All the stations of NY are mentioned are they superior to the Bangkok ones??? No offcourse not, these kind of questions you will see many times with regards to subjects that are outside of the European/American interest sphere. Waerth 13:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is, nevertheless, a red herring in this context. Why not address the other points I made? Filiocht

So we obviously disagree on this no pun intended. I do feel it is right in this context. This is purely a matter of taste and that is something that is almost undebatable. As to your other points, I thought I had addressed them in my previous rant. If not than I feel Danny has answered this. Waerth 14:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johnleemk Yes I am an American/European capitalist/socialist pig living in Bangkok Waerth 13:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Carpp reread it and you will understand that there is no room for original research. An event that has happened and that might not be worldnews because Belize barely makes a dent in international politics but still has happened so is a fact belongs here. In these kind of cases it is called faith. Some wikipedia editors warrant faith because of the way they edit. This guy will not make it up thats for sure. I once wrote an article about a famous sporter in Thailand whom doesn't have any google links. Yet the sporter exists and is famous in Thailand so warrants entry here. One of the reasons I hate editing on the English wikipedia is because most people find policies more important than what wikipedia is. A gathering lace for all human knowledge. There is to much bloody politics involved on this pedia. And oh yeah I SHOUT when I want to, I have gone through enough shit in my short life (last event the tsunami) to take that right Waerth 13:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to shout, but accept the damage it does to your argument (i.e. other people may soon stop listening). I have also written about people who had no Google hits at the time of writing (thanks to our mirrors, they now have lots) but always cited my sources so nobody has ever deleted any of this information. Filiocht 14:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Good for you! same here whenever I was asked to put up a reference I will . Some references are just my own eyes sometimes, as Danny pointed out when we were a smaller community we knew whom to trust and whom not. Just because something is written in the media doesn't make it true, many media's have agenda's and that agenda is not alway to put the truth out there. Just because something was missed by CNN doesn't mean it never happened. Welcome to life Waerth 14:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is about "received knowledge". It seems Waerth is taking part in some completely different discussion here. or shouting contest, as the case may be. dab (ᛏ) 15:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess it is time for me to add my two cents here. Let me be straightforward. I do not regret making the block. Valuable information was being added to Wikipedia--information that no one else was reporting at the time--and it came from a reliable source--Belizean, who lives in the country and was witnessing the events unfold and feeding reports from the local radio. In the context of Current Events, that is certainly noteworthy. The material was consistently removed, and I continue to regard that as vandalism, though I understand how Carrp did not see it as such. Regardless, this is what current events is for. I might suggest people refer to the history of the page when the space shuttle exploded. We had it on current events before it even hit the news stations because, and I recall this very well, someone heard the explosion from their home. I did suggest to Belizean that he also report on what happened on Wikinews, but that project is still in its earliest stages and does not have the authority (yet) of Wikipedia. Quite frankly, Current Events is where I generally go to for news on the web. It is up-to-date, taking in information from so many different sources, and trustworthy. I do, however, regret that I blocked Carrp for 24 hours, when an hour block would have sufficed in that instance. That is why I did not reinstate the block when it was lifted. Of course, the information was removed again shortly after as "not notable." I think that is what Waerth refers to as a Western bias, and that is something that we should certainly try to avoid. As for "What Wikipedia is not," in fact we are aiming to be a repository of all human knowledge, both past and current. Jimbo has said that constantly, and I personally have used those exact words when I accepted the Golden Nica Award on behalf of Wikipedia. That information should be encyclopedic (hence, no FAQs, etc.) and it should be NPOV (hence, no advertising). It should, however, be as current as possible. In fact, that is the beauty of this project. It is constantly updating itself with the latest information available (Tsunami information and the exploration of Titan come to mind). So, as for that statement in "What Wikipedia Is Not," it should probably be removed, and I will advocate that. As for warnings, there is an inherent problem in Wikipedia right now. Back in the good old days, everyone knew everybody else. We knew who the trusted users were, and we knew whose information was trustworthy. Similarly, we knew who was just gaming the system. In fact, one highly respected user would go over all the Recent Changes daily, welcome all the new users, and still have time to make a prodigious amount of edits (he is still in the top 10, btw). That has changed. The tightly knit village has rapidly expanded into a city, where even some of the best users are relatively anonymous. While it undoubtedly has its advantages, it also has its drawbacks. Whereas sysops once knew each other (and this was long before IRC), today they don't. This sparks distrust, even among the sysop community, and a reliance on rules that were put in place under certain circumstances, which may well have changed considerably as a result of our remarkable growth. Nevertheless, I still believe that the most effective rule of all is common sense. Common sense derives from experience (with other users, with the project as a whole, and with life in general), as well as circumstances. Right now, more than ever, this is important, as the rules were added sporadically and randomly, and may often conflict with other rules. In fact, anyone can edit the rules, and this has been seen to happen. Therefore, until these rules are codified and set in stone, I will continue to act out of common sense, first and foremost. I apologize to Carrp for any inconvenience that this may have caused him, and assure him that this was not a personal invective against him, but rather an effort to maintain the reliabilty and up-to-date nature of our information. I also believe that Wikipedia is a general knowledge base. It must continue to provide all of teh most up-to-date knowledge available. After all, that is what an encyclopedia is--and that is what I will continue to promote in all of my Wikipedia-related activities. Danny 14:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a judicious assessment, and certainly fair enough. I agree that wikinews is a very good source, and, had I been aware of it, I would have voted to keep the Belizian's report, too. Yes, both common sense and experience are important, and I think it's obvious that Danny has his share of both. dab (ᛏ) 14:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Using block as a first resort rather than a last? Blocking peopel without warning first at least trying to comunicate them is hardly a way to increase trust. I mean we normaly give at least 1 warning to even the most anoying outright vandelsGeni 14:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know. I meant Danny's partial apology, and his show of good faith. I imagine once I've been here for three years, I'll also think that 'newcomers' don't know their asses from their elbows, that's just human. I agree that blocks without warnings should be restricted to very clear cases, like people uploading random pornography and replacing articles with "penis". Anything else should warrant fair warning. dab (ᛏ) 15:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR breaches by Robert Blair

Robert Blair (aka 207.69.13*.*) has breached the 3RR as follows: [4] [5] This information was brought to the attention of Fvw who chose not to act.

(Added by Robert the Bruce)

• I see no evidence of User:Robert_Blair violating the 3RR in either of those articles. The reverts he has done have been spaced so that there is no more than three in any 24 hour period. SWAdair | Talk 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation by User:Palestine-info on Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948

User:Palestine-info has violated the 3RR on Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948, repeatedly deleting cited information as follows: [6] [7] [8] [9]. Was already warned about the 3RR on another page: [10]. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He's done it again; now he's trying to "game" the system by removing the entire sentence, not just the specific controversial section, and claiming that therefore it's a different revert. [11] [12] Jayjg | (Talk) 16:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked, gaming noted in block log - David Gerard 18:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have discussed it with Palestine-Info on IRC, listed the edits and unblocked him - David Gerard 20:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the talk helped, since he did it again, and in under 3 hours:

• [13] Revision as of 20:43, 20 Jan 2005
• [14] Revision as of 21:27, 20 Jan 2005
• [15] Revision as of 22:16, 20 Jan 2005
• [16] Revision as of 23:12, 20 Jan 2005

- Jayjg | (Talk) 23:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone else, please? I don't think I should block on this one again - David Gerard 05:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours -- Chris 73 Talk 05:34, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Which brings up an interesting point - what do we do with people who routinely violate the 3RR? Clearly the maximum penalty laid out in WP:3RR (24 hours) doesn't deter some people, and arbitration is a lot of work. Would repeat 3RR violators fall under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption? I certainly feel they do (but I would like to see any admin get consensus from several others that someone falls under this before imposing a longer block - many 3RR violations aren't 100% clearcut). Noel (talk) 12:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

they break it routinely, you block them routinely. Not much different from random anon vandalism. The 3RR keeps the edit histories relatively clean and slows down edit wars, it doesn't aspire to solving anything else. I am afraid rfc+arbcom is the only way to go. But I agree we'll need some sort of "court martial" arbitration dealing with routine cases, to save time and energy. dab (ᛏ) 12:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, RFC+ArbCom it is I'm afraid. I actually would like to see some sort of special arbcom "fast-track" procedure for non-complex problems concerning one specific piece of behaviour (and which wouldn't impose bans of longer than say 30 days). That, or bring back quickpolls… --fvw* 12:38, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)