|
/*
{{shortcut|[[WP:AN/I]]}}
<pre>
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Navbox}}
*/
/* Notice to Administrators! Any changes to Monobook.css or Common.css should be first
This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please feel free to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents§ion=new&action=edit leave a message].
proposed to [[Wikipedia:Village Pump]]. Furthermore, changes should be made in
[[MediaWiki:Common.css]] rather than this page, unless there is no effect in
[[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. Thank you. */
@import "/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&smaxage=2678400";
<font color="red">'''Note:'''</font> Reporting violations of the [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule|three revert rule]] should be done at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]].
/* Donations link to be uncommented during fundraising drives */
If you do post, '''please''' sign and ''date'' all contributions, using the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Links and URLs|special form]] "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>", which translates into a signature and a time stamp <u title="(jargon) Automatically, but in a way that, for some reason (typically because it is too complicated, or too ugly, or perhaps even too trivial), the speaker doesn't feel like explaining to you.">automagically</u>. (The page archivers really need the time information.)
#siteNotice {
<!-- "Automagically" is not a typo - see [[Jargon File]] - this is not a content page, let's have a '''teensy'' sense of humour, OK? -->
margin-top:5px;
padding-left: 4px;
font-style: italic;
text-align: center;
}
/****************************/
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 [[WP:RFC|RFC]] or [[WP:RFAr|RFAr]], but not both.
/* BEGIN LIGHT BLUE SECTION */
/****************************/
/* Make all non-namespace pages have a light blue content area. This is done by
setting the background color for all #content areas to light blue and then
overriding it for any #content enclosed in a .ns-0 (main namespace). I then
do the same for the "tab" background colors. --Lupo */
#content {
Please be aware that this page ''isn't'' the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution procedure]] which we recommend you follow. If you bring such disputes here, we will usually advise you to take them elsewhere, such as [[WP:RFM|mediation]], [[WP:RFC|requests for comment]], or [[WP:RFAr|requests for arbitration]].
background: #F8FCFF; /* a light blue */
}
#content div.thumb {
''See also'':
border-color: #F8FCFF;
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested|Arbitrators' requests for admin enforcement]]
}
* [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy|Blocking policy]]
* [[Wikipedia:Controversial blocks|Controversial blocks]]
* [[Special:Blockip|Block user]]
* [[Special:Ipblocklist|List of blocked IP addresses and usernames]]
* [[Special:Log/block|Block log]]
.ns-0 * #content {
<!-- New entries go down at the *bottom* of the page, not here. -->
background: white;
}
#mytabs li {
== Heads up ==
background: #F8FCFF;
}
.ns-0 * #mytabs li {
It appears someone has found a bug in our software. They put in <nowiki>#redirect [[de:en:Goatse.cx]]</nowiki> and this redirects to Goatse WITHOUT the redirect flag appearing. See [[Main Page/Main page]] for an example. - [[User:203.35.154.254|203.35.154.254]] 01:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
background: white;
}
#mytabs li a {
:This is a known problem; see [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=850 bug #850] and [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999 bug 999]. [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 01:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
background-color: #F8FCFF;
}
.ns-0 * #mytabs li a {
: See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive11#New vandal MO]]. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 02:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
background-color: white;
}
#p-cactions li a {
== Javascript-assisted vandalism ==
background-color: #F8FCFF;
}
.ns-0 * #p-cactions li a {
Take a look at [[User:Deletion log/monobook.js]] and tell me that we do have a way to forbid such semi-automated vandalism! The guy created some 30 nonsense articles within minutes before I blocked him indefinitely. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 16:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
background-color: white;
}
.ns-0 * #content div.thumb {
It seems to be a new trend among vandals, I also deleted a js file from a page move vandal<br>
border-color: white;
''(from Deletion log)''<br>
}
*14:16, Mar 21, 2005 MacGyverMagic deleted User:Zwobot/monobook.js (made with intent to vandalize; content was: 'window.onload = vandalizefunction vandalize() {document.forms[0].wpNewTitle.value = document.forms[0].wpNewTitle.value + ' has a big willy';docume...')
-- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:55, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
/**************************/
== Snowspinner's block of [[User:John-1107|John-1107]] ==
/* END LIGHT BLUE SECTION */
/**************************/
/* Display "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" */
[[User:Snowspinner]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Snowspinner&page=User%3AJohn-1107 blocked] [[User:John-1107]] again today. This time, it was for '''one month''', with a confusing reason of "''Claiming non-existant judicial legitimacy''". I don't see any cause for this, and Snowspinner has neither given any warning to this user nor sufficiently explained exactly what this block is regarding.
#siteSub {
display: inline;
font-size: 100%;
font-weight: normal;
}
#bodyContent #siteSub a {
Can someone please look into this? Snowspinner has rejected my request for an explanation, maybe someone else will have better luck. If this user is such a problem, why can't Snowspinner file a RFC? One month blocks shouldn't be given lightly. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 02:57, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
color: #000;
text-decoration: none;
background-color: transparent;
background-image: none;
padding-right: 0;
}
/* Bold 'edit this page' link to encourage newcomers */
:RfCs are not an essential part of the blocking policy for disruption, which is the criteria employed. The edit in question involved making inaccurate statements about the rulings of the arbcom and several other groups. This is on top of two prior blocks for disruption, which seem to provide prior warning. And, contrary to Netoholic's account of things, I explained everything I'm saying here to him on his talk page when he asked. Curious. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels&diff=11376937&oldid=11375870] is the edit I blocked for, incidentally, though his resistance to the idea of not adding copyvio material would have worked too. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 03:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
#ca-edit a { font-weight: bold !important; }
/* Display "User $1, you are already logged in!"
:: You posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&diff=11380670&oldid=11379913 something] on my talk page, but I wouldn't call it an explanation. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 03:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
([[MediaWiki:Alreadyloggedin]]) in red and bold */
div.alreadyloggedin { color: red; font-weight: bold; }
@media print {
:The block seems fine to me. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 03:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
/* Do not print edit link in templates using Template:Ed
Do not print certain classes that shouldn't appear on paper */
.editlink, .noprint, .metadata, .dablink { display: none }
}
:John-1107 is a problem user with a history of posting nonsense as fact. He has been doing so since November (beginning as an anonymous user with a focus on ''[[Halo (video game series)|Halo]]''). If he didn't seem so completely out of touch with reality, I'd consider him a vandal. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 03:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
/* Accessibility experiment: make diff changes not just colour-based */
:: I'm aware of his history, and can't sympathize too much, but a one month block for a confusing talk page post isn't appropriate. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 03:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
.diffchange {
:Unfortunately, questionable blocks by Snowspinner are par for the course. Why does he have to do things like this? Why can't he come to deliberate here before acting? Being an admin isn't intended to make anyone a miniature dictator; it's janitorial work, and if the powers are going to be used aggressively rather than cautiously, they just shouldn't be used at all. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 20:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
font-weight: bold;
background-color: inherit;
}
td.diff-addedline, td.diff-deletedline, td.diff-context {
:I agree with the gist of Everyking's comments regarding the nature of the administrative role. There are very few policies under which an administrator is empowered to block an established user for a month. Which one was it in this case? ''Claiming non-existant judicial legitimacy'' doesn't call to mind any obvious policy that would support a one month block. --[[User:BM|BM]] 01:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
font-size: 85%;
color: inherit;
}
#pt-login {
:::Cyrius' comment is most relevant here. The issue isn't Snowspinner's block, it's about John-1107's edits that led to his blocking. John-1107 does not appear to be able to edit Wikipedia in any positive way; Snowspinner has done both him and Wikipedia a favour. Protestations of "admin abuse" against Snowspinner would have more weight if the people he was "abusing" didn't so consistently turn out to be trolls, vandals, or people who end up being sanctioned by ArbCom. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 01:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
font-weight: bold;
::::What sort of things does John do that are so negative? He writes nonsense? What does that mean? He writes things that are patently absurd? He writes things that are POV? He writes things that have a basis in truth but are questionable in the details? I have no familiarity with him, but I do have enough familarity with Snowspinner that I can make a reasonable guess that he probably overreacted, and probably used provocative threats in lieu of honest discussion in dealing with him. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 06:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
font-size: 110%;
:::::He writes:
}
form#userlogin {
" '''Wikimedia Arbitration Bureaucratic Administrative Coordinator''':
float: left;
[[User:John-1107|John V]] - one of the leading members of the UNWFAACBAMA-LPTISDSCSEASF."
padding: 1em 1em .7em 1em;
background-color: #ffffe6;
border: 2px solid #fc6;
color: #000;
margin-right: 2em;
}
form#userlogin table {
"'''Committee Arbitration Bureaucratic Coordination Adminship''':
float: left;
I became the first Wikimedia Arbitration Bureaucratic Administrative Coordinator
background-color: #ffffe6;
of the [[Wikipedia:Committee of Wikipedians]] on March 19, 2005."
color: #000;
}
p.error {
"On the orders of me and the Wikimedian Committee of Members' Advocates
font-weight: bold;
and Bureaucratic Administrators and Arbitration Committee"
}
/* Class styles */
"Now that i have finally rose to power as the Committee's
first AC Bureaucratic Administrative Coordinator"
/* .toccolours added here because version in
"In times of crisis, i will be granted emergency powers until the Martial
monobook/main.css wasn't being used by the print style */
State of Emergency is over."
.toccolours {
border:1px solid #aaaaaa;
background-color:#f9f9f9;
padding:5px;
font-size: 95%;
}
/* Remove padding from external links displayed without icon */
Basically he gave himself a made up title, and then tried to use that made up title to imply that he had authority. Now he certainly wouldn't fool any of us but he may well fool a newbie into thinking that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of nutters. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 07:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#bodyContent .plainlinks a {padding: 0 !important}
:That's what he was blocked for? He just sounds like a kid. I'd say ask him to remove the proclamation of authority or at least make it clear that it's a joke. A one month block for that is ridiculous. We can't expect total maturity out of everybody. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 08:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#p-nav h5 {
:I'm sorry, Theresa, administrators do not have the authority to block other members, except under very specific circumstances that are spelled out in the policies. These are, briefly:
display: none;
# short blocks for violation of the 3RR rule
}
# vandalism
# violations of various specific injunctions against specific users arising out of Arb Comm cases
# a few situations described in [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. The only one of these that is at all generic is "disruption".
:There is no policy that gives administrators the authority to block people who they think it would be a good idea to block. Even behaviour that would result in the ArbComm blocking or banning someone is not behaviour that administrators can act against as individul administrators. Individual administrators are not cops or enforcers, except in a very few cases. Now, someone giving himself a "made up title" is not a grounds for blocking BY AN ADMINISTRATOR. If the Arb Comm would like to block someone for this, then they have the authority from Jimbo to do so, the arbitrators being people who have been elected by the community specifically for that role. Individual administrators should not be blocking people. When people vote on administrators (unlike Arbitrator), they are looking at whether the prospective administrator can be trusted with the elevated privileges needed for custodial functions. Nobody elected Snowspinner, or any other administrator, to be a moderator who can unilaterally block people, except for a few very well dilineated reasons. Even individual arbitrators are just administrators the same as the others -- that is, janitors -- except when they operate as the Arbitration Committee. If all of this is too cumbersome, then somebody should say so, and we should change the policies and the messages around administrators' roles. For example, we should stop saying that administrators are just the "mop and bucket" brigade, because Snowspinner, for one, is obviously carrying more than a mop and bucket around. --[[User:BM|BM]] 14:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
.portlet a {
== [[User:Nosrail]] ==
text-decoration: none;
}
.portlet a:hover {
Please see [[User:Nosrail/monobook.js]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Nosrail contributions], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=11335215&oldid=11335180 his edit] on [[Turkey]]. Looks like a vandal ready to strike. Should he be blocked? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
text-decoration: underline;
}
#p-nav .pBody {
::Update: Nosrail has posted an informative notice on his user page. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 11:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
padding-right: 0;
}
#p-nav a {
Can we do a preemptive block on anybody who creates one of these .js files? [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 20:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
display: block;
width: 100%;
}
/* Special characters list below edit window works better without underlining */
::If we could find them, I think it's reasonable, but we should know what the .js file does first. Aren't some of them allowed for layout purposes, or should those all be css? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 11:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
#editpage-specialchars a { text-decoration: none; }
:::A monobook.js file is necessary for doing simple things like adding a set of the navigation tabs to the bottom of the page. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 01:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#editpage-specialchars a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }
/* If you don't want to see special characters list at all,
:::Now don't overreact here! Private <tt>monobook.js</tt>'s have ''lots'' of legitimate uses; in fact, I use mine to do extensive skin customizations including getting a section edit link for the lead section in Mozilla/Firefox, getting a toolbox with lots of useful shortcut links, and general page restructuring. But if I could find a way to redefine that submit function of the form in such a way that it couldn't be called from within an "onload" handler, now ''that'' would stop this technique cold (which has been used recently to perform vandalism, see [[#Javascript-assisted vandalism]] above) while still allowing useful and legitimate uses of that function. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 13:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
put the following line in your User:You/monobook.css file
(and remove the slash-asterisk comments) */
/* #editpage-specialchars { display: none; } */
/* Makes the background of a framed image white instead of gray. */
==[[User:CPS]] deleting other people's comments==
/* Only visible with transparent images. */
/* See #Framed_image_background_color */
div.thumb div a img {
background-color:#ffffff;
}
/* To position the spoken article link at the top of page
CPS is repeatedly deleting other people's comments from VfD and Talk pages. I have warned him in the past that he should refrain, but instead, he deleted my comments from his Talk page, and returned to his old behavior. I have blocked him for 24 hours, and have warned him that if he continues with this behavior, he will be blocked for 48 hours the next time, etc. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 05:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Commented out while sitenotice present */
#spoken {
:I'm guessing this user probably had some sort of reason for wanting to delete other people's comments. On the surface, it sounds terrible, but I would like to know what sort of justification he or she would have. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 05:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
position: absolute;
::Well there is no way of finding that out if someone deletes warnings on their talk page instead of talking :-( [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 07:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
float: right;
:::Theoretically, he or she might be deleting personal attacks, for all I know, or he or she might not be deleting comments at all, but simply moving them around, refactoring, or something of that sort. Anyway, I'm sure if he or she was asked nicely, he or she would stop. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 08:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
text-align: right;
font-size: 90%;
right: 0;
z-index: 1;
background: none;
border-bottom-style: none;
top: -2.2em;
display: block !important;
}
/* try adding here, this had no effect in [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] */
This is RickK's warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CPS&diff=11455581&oldid=11370107] it's firm but not rude.
.plainlinksneverexpand a.external.text:after {
display: none !important
}
/* Standard Navigationsleisten, aka box hiding thingy from .de.*/
This is what was deleted:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_dead_rappers&diff=prev&oldid=11458105] it's critism but not a personal attack.
div.Boxmerge,
But I'm willing to give dialog a go. I'll go do it now. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 08:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
div.NavFrame {
margin: 0px;
padding: 2px;
border: 1px solid #aaaaaa;
text-align: center;
border-collapse: collapse;
font-size: 95%;
}
div.Boxmerge div.NavFrame {
border-style: none;
border-style: hidden;
}
div.NavFrame + div.NavFrame {
border-top-style: none;
border-top-style: hidden;
}
div.NavPic {
background-color: #ffffff;
margin: 0px;
padding: 2px;
float: left;
}
div.NavFrame div.NavHead {
height: 1.6em;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 100%;
background-color: #efefef;
position:relative;
}
div.NavFrame p {
font-size: 100%;
}
div.NavFrame div.NavContent {
font-size: 100%;
}
div.NavFrame div.NavContent p {
font-size: 100%;
}
div.NavEnd {
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
line-height: 1px;
clear: both;
}
a.NavToggle {
position:absolute;
top:0px;
right:3px;
font-weight:normal;
font-size:smaller;
}
/*
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:198.82.71.55&diff=prev&oldid=11350470 This] was his first Talk page deletion. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 10:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
</pre>
*/
There is a "semi-policy" which says that it is advisable to delete personal attacks on Talk pages. I don't know what a "semi-policy" is, but clearly it countenances the deletion of comments on Talk pages. As soon as you have a policy that sanctions the deletion of personal attacks, it opens the question as to what is a "personal attack". When is a personal attack just "criticism"? Who decides what is a personal attack and which personal attacks to delete? The person who feels attacked? Some neutral third-party? Also, again I ask: what policy gives RickK the authority to block somebody for this reason? The policies give administrators authority to block people in a limited number of situations. This is not one of them. We have an Arbitration Committee for dealing with behaviour that might require sanction that falls outside those specific situations. --[[User:BM|BM]] 14:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:The policy that gives RickK the authority to block somebody is vandalism. [[User:CPS|CPS]] is deleting other user's comments on article talk pages (ie, not the user talk page). This can be construed as vandalism, and IMO, is a blockable offense. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Death]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 15:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Well deleting user's comments on article talk pages is not '''prime facie''' vandalism since, as I said, there is a "semi-policy" that actually advises people to do this in the case of personal attacks; namely [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks]]. There might be some debate about whether something is a personal attack, but the consequence of getting that wrong should not be that one is summarily found guilty of "vandalism" and blocked forthwith. Moreover, assuming the behaviour in question is vandalism, with respect to vandalism, [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] states: ''Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner. Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism.'' In other words, even if this behaviour is "vandalism", which is debatable, administrators are not authorized to block a logged-in user for vandalism, unless the account is only be used for vandalism. What do these policies mean if administrators can make up the rules as they go along? Do administrators blocking people actually pay any attention to these policies, or are they all doing what they consider to be "the right thing", reckoning that they will be backed up by the consensus? Are administrators actually expected to read and comply with these policies? If the administrators aren't expected to read and comply with them, why should anybody be expected to? --[[User:BM|BM]] 16:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Obviously trying to apply [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks]] and getting it wrong is not a reason to be blocked. But that's not what happened here, so what is your argument? The key thing that you don't understand BM is that administrators are trusted members of the community and are ''supposed'' to use thier judgement. RickK warned the user that he'd block if he removed anymore comments.This is not a well meaning but misguided user trying to apply policy. This is someone who deleted comments from a vfd debate because they critisised his behaviour. I for one fully support the 24 hour block. (I wouldn't support a permenant block). [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 18:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: I've occasionally (and probably more than anyone else) employed [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks]], and I can confirm that it's rather tricky and easy to get wrong. If applied widely it might well make a Wiki unusable because it could become infested with trolls determined to take offense at the least negative statement. It can be a very effective tool, however, for keeping a discussion on track where one or two participants get into flame war mode, or where one obnoxious person is trying to bait you with insults. My rule of thumb is that if a sentence or fragment is solely intended to draw a negative inference concerning another editor it can be removed without changing the salient facts conveyed. "There is no evidence to support X's claim--he's clearly lying" can be reduced to "There is no evidence to support X's claim." --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: This user seems to have taken any comment that was slightly negative as a personal attack. In this case I think Rick was right to block CPS. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
::As do I. CPS aapears to be happy to use personal attacks a plenty himself though: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eazy-E&diff=0 you pathetic wiki-cop] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-to-work_law&diff=prev&oldid=11064975 keep trying, dimwit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29&diff=prev&oldid=9764336 look it up yourself dimwit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-to-work_law&diff=prev&oldid=9755064 get a life you jackass] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lokifer&diff=prev&oldid=9729865 Republican scumbag] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_stereotypes&diff=prev&oldid=9727409 remove personal attack: this is the chickenshit hillbilly's idea of an insult] Note that last one was a removal of someone elses vote on a vfd debate. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 18:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Whether the behaviour is appropriate or not, neither Mgm nor Theresa is addressing the fundamental point. The main question is not whether this behaviour is appropriate or not, it is WHO DECIDES and WHO APPLIES THE SANCTION for misbehaviour. The project has policies. What do those policies mean? In this case, one can argue about whether the behaviour was permitted under [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks]]. But even if it was inappropriate behaviour, it is not VANDALISM, and even if it were, administrators cannot block logged-in users for VANDALISM under the blocking policy. Whenever this type of topic comes up, people always dodge the basic question as to administrator powers and conformity with policy, and try to focus on the behaviour that prompted the admin action. The presumption seems to be that if the behaviour was inappropriate (even if there is no policy against it), then any administrator has power to deal with it. It is like trying to excuse a cop for roughting someone up by arguing: "Well anyway he was guilty, and look, besides that, he isn't a very nice guy". My point is that in general ADMINISTRATORS HAVE NO POWERS to discipline logged-in regular members for misbehaviour, except in certain specific situations defined by policy. This isn't one of those situations. The only people with power to deal with it are JIMBO and the ARBITRATION COMMITTEE (as a group). That is the issue here. If you want to tell me I'm wrong and that admins have greater powers than I think, please point me to where it says that. --[[User:BM|BM]] 21:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::Could someone block this guy for excessive lawyering? ;-) This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::Actually, it isn't me who is excessively legalistic. The whole ethos of the Wikipedia is legalistic -- what with its extensive "policies" and "semi-policies" (good grief!), and a quasi-judicial "arbitration committee", with "petitioners", "respondents", "evidence", etc. However, it is all a bit of a sham, in my opinion, because there seems to be a group of administrators who basically discipline other members as they see fit, and the fact that there is no policy which authorizes their actions doesn't seem to slow them down much. I really don't even object to this, since I'm the God-King on my own web-site, and on my own site if the Terms of Use stop me from keeping things running smoothly, I just change the Terms of Use. If Jimbo wanted to designate "super-administrators" with greater discretion than others to block other users, etc, regardless of policy, I wouldn't object. The only thing I object to, really, is the intellectual dishonesty of the current situation -- the fact that administrators are described as "janitors", etc, subject to the same policies and consensus as everyone else, but that it is not really so. I think the actual system should be made clear. It would be kind of nice to know who those super-administrators are, too, and how and why they were chosen. Either that, or maybe people should be doing what the policies say they are supposed to be doing (and not doing what the policies say they shouldn't be doing.) --[[User:BM|BM]] 22:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Firstly blocking someone for 24 hours from editing a website is nothing like a cop roughing someone up. Please let's keep things in perspective. Really BM you need to pick your fights mate. Yeah you're right administrators are more than janitors. They are ''trusted'' members of the community. trusted that is not to abuse their powers. RickK did not abuse his powers in this case. We are all here for the same reason. Namely to build an encylopedia. Our policies are here to help us do that, and to prevent admins from ''abusing'' their power. Policies are not laws, and they are not straight jackets. This is a clear case of someone who was being disruptive, they were warned not do do something, and that warning was reasonable, yet they persisted. Note that we have no policy that states admins should use a measure of common sense. The power that RickK, and other admins have comes from the community. If you think he shouldn't have blocked CPS you are going to have to go to the community on it. Start a rfc. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 23:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I think there's a problem in that admins tend to make reference to their powers too often. When asking someone to stop doing something, one need only ask; there isn't necessarily any need to threaten: most people will stop even if they have no idea you're an admin. But an arrogant pretense of authority is enough to goad some people into continuing whatever behavior they shouldn't have been doing. A person should ''really'' have to be causing some problems to warrant a block. Page move vandalism, uploading vandalistic images, repeatedly blanking pages, etc. Blocking people is serious business: if a revert is a slap in the face, then a block breaks a nose and knocks out some teeth. It's not something one should do without a very clear and indisputable reason. A block does two very serious things: it prevents a person from contributing, when they could be doing a lot of good work, and it marginalizes the person and fills the person with animosity, and turns them off from the project. So we need to be more careful. If you can reasonably expect some people to dispute the block, don't do it. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I agree that blocking should not be undertaken lightly. And I agree that polite warnings should be given not heavy handed ones. But I support RickK's block in this instance. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Theresa, I appreciate the advice, but in fact I am picking my fights. If I chose to protest cases where everybody was protesting -- where everybody thought that the admin had been unreasonable and the outcome unjust -- the issue would be buried. Nobody argues that administrators should be able to abuse their powers in order to achieve an unreasonable result. Everybody will be saying the administrator abused his powers in those cases. Those are not the interesting cases. I am saying it is an abuse of powers, EVEN WHEN THE OUTCOME IS REASONABLE. It is only when the result is reasonable that there is an issue about the process. My argument is that Wikipedia cannot have 400+ administrators all exercising their "judgement" about what is reasonable. If the policies are getting in the way of administrators dealing efficiently with problems, then we should fix the policies. The blocking policy SAYS, very clearly, with no latitude for interpretation, that administrators are not supposed to block logged-in users for vandalism unless the account has been, in essence, used exclusively for vandalism. If that is not the consensus of the community, and administrators are not obliged to follow the policy when in their "judgement" it shouldn't be applicable, then why does the policy state that? The policy could easily state what you say is the de-facto consensus: "Administrators can block logged-in members for vandalism after a warning for up to 24 hours. But it doesn't state that. Why not? If you think it should, then why not try to get consensus for a change in the policy. If the de facto consensus is already there, it shouldn't be hard. What is the meaning of these policies if any administrator can substitute his or her own opinion as to what the policies should be? Why bother having written policies that contradict what you claim is the unwritten consensus? --[[User:BM|BM]] 00:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let's look at the blocking policy:
"Sysops may, '''at their judgement''', block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. (emphasis mine)
Now does removing people's signed comments from a vfd debate disrupt the functioning of vfd? Of course it does! When the admin who has to decide whether to delete a page or not comes to the page they need to be able to read through what everyone has said. If you don't agree that this user should have been blocked you really should start a rfc and see what the community thinks [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, now you a shifting to another pretext for the action. The disruption policy. Which is it, disruption or vandalism? And you've dodged my basic point and your previous answer, and are now arguing about policy again. So does that mean you have conceded my point that administrators should follow policy? By the way, the sentence you quoted refers to IP addresses. User:CPS isn't an IP address. --[[User:BM|BM]] 01:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Of course administrators should follow policy. But no policy can cover all situations. Here is where we have a difference of opinion - I'm saying that administrators have to use thier judgement sometimes, whereas you are arguing that they shouldn't. We can argue this all day but we won't get anywhere. I feel admins are there to serve the community by making descisions and exercising good judgement. They shouldn't abuse thier powers, but they shouldn't be afraid to use them when doing so is the right thing to do. You are not going to change my mind on that. BTW I never claimed he was blocked for vandalism and neither did RickK, and we are not arguing pretexts we are giving reasons.
[[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 01:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:You are correct that it wasn't RickK that claimed this block was under the rubric of vandalism. He didn't bother to mention which policy sanctioned it, and I dare say he was not detained much by the need to find one, since he was exercising his "judgement" and that, according to you, is sufficient.
::Yep, you'll notice how he also posted his actions here for review.
: So lets look at "disruption". If you actually look at User:CPS' edit history, you find only two cases where CPS edited Talk pages or VfD and removed comments, going all the way back into February. One of these was on Mar 24, where he twice removed the same Megan1964 comment from a VfD vote that was referenced above. This was not a vote, but a comment critical of CPS' vote on VfD. One can argue about whether it was a personal attack,
::It clearly isn't and he was warned not to do it a second time but he went ahead and did it anyway.
: but as we discussed above, there is a policy allowing removal of personal attacks,
::No there isn't.
:and if there is a (semi-)policy allowing for their removal, then it should not be deemed a blockable disruption if someone somewhat oversteps consensus about what constitutes a personal attack.
::Yes it should in a clear case like this one
: The other case was on Mar 21, where CPS blanked [[User_talk:198.82.71.55]]. This was his own Talk page from before he registered as User:CPS, and the comments he removed were all in Nov-Dec, 2004.
::Irrelavent. The block was for the above two removals of other people's comments from a vfd page.
: So, removing one marginal comment on VfD, and blanking the Talk page he had as an anon before registering. Still think this was sufficient disruption of Wikipedia to warrant being blocked, Theresa? To me it doesn't look disruptive at all. --[[User:BM|BM]] 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::I know exactly what he did, i read through his past contributions before commenting here. I even posted a link further up the page where he removed a vote from a vfd listing. So yes I ''still think'' he warrents a block. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 02:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, IMO, it was vandalism, and my opinion only, no-one else's. BM, I think I mentioned this before, but if every admin did things the way you suggest, they'd be looking up policy 2.3, section A, paragraph 32, subparagraph C "Woops, better check another section", while bad faith editors are hammering away at Wikipedia and laughing at us for being so slow to react. Sometimes, police, customs agents, detectives act on instinct honed from experience. I think admins are trusted members of the community who are experienced enough to spot a bad faith editor when they see it. If they're wrong, there are many other admins who can revert. I've read this board long enough to know that other admins can and will revert when they think the action is wrong. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Death]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 03:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Nonsense. [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] is short. So are the other policies. An admin can be reasonably expected to know these policies. You'd think before an admin blocked somebody, he might concern himself with whether he is allowed to do that. Nobody compelled them to become admins, and since the community is trusting them to follow policy and comply with consensus, they had better know what the policies and consensus are. Besides, the policies are simple. For example [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] gives admins wide latitude to deal with vandalism by blocking anonymous IP's. That is the "mop and bucket brigade" part of the job. It cautions admins to be very circumspect and conservative when blocking logged-in users. Admin's don't have to carry and thick law books. It is simple: when dealing with other established members of Wikipedia, you have very little weight to throw around, so don't. That is why we have the Arbitration Committee. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of admins who won't accept this. --[[User:BM|BM]] 03:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Theresa so we are down to whether removing one comment on VFD was "disruptive". Note that RickK's justification above is "repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VFD and Talk pages". "Repeated" turns out to be one comment deleted twice. Let us look at the edit histories.
# At 6:21 21 Mar, he blanked his old User_talk page from when he was an anon.
# At 6:24 21 Mar, RickK asked him on his Talk page why he had done this. CPS doesn't seem to have replied.
# At 10:26 21 Mar, Megan1964 made the following comment on VfD/List of dead rappers: ''Well I guess your plea is better than simply blanking/removing/censoring other people's votes you dont agree with which you have a previous record of doing btw. Thank goodness you don't run a democracy. P.S. I seriously doubt there is a pro-Libertarian bias on Wikipedia. [[User:Megan1967|Megan1967]] 10:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)'' This seems like a personal attack to me, although in fairness, it is in response to an ad hominem comment by CPS concerning Megan's vote. Whether it is a personal attack or not, I can see someone reasonably considering it to be one. Incidentally, I'm not sure where Megan1967 found evidence for this accusation; certainly it wasn't recent behaviour.
# At 10:47 21 Mar, he reverted the comment, with the edit summary was ''rv immature and irrelevant remarks''.
# At 20:34 21 Mar, RickK restored the deleted comment, with the edit summary ''restoring Megan's comments improperly deleted by CPS''
# At 20:36 21 Mar, RickK wrote on his Talk page: ''PLEASE stop removing other people's comments from Talk and VfD pages. This is vandalism, and will result in your being blocked from editing. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 20:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)''
# Three days later, at 3:15, 24 Mar he reverted the Megan1967 comment in the VfD again, this time with the edit summary, ''these are personal attacks meant to distract from the actual issue at hand...please Megan1967, grow up''. This makes it clear that he considered the comment to be a personal attack, the removal of which is allowed by the "semi-" policy, [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks]].
# A few minutes later at 3:21, 24 Mar he removed the two edits by RickK from his Talk page.
# At 5:43, RickK blocked him for ''repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VfD and Talk pages. Has been cautioned before)''.
From this sequence, it is clear to me that CPS thought he was removing personal attacks from a VFD, and the User Talk pages he was editing were his own. Also, RickK warned him about vandalism, but these edits were not vandalism, and anyway as we discussed above, administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism. As for whether it was disruption, I don't see how removing one comment from a VfD vote, especially the one in question, could be construed as disruption of the Wikipedia rising to the level of blocking. Nor can I see it being disruption justifying a block to edit your own Talk pages. --[[User:BM|BM]] 03:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Well, if any admin agrees with you, they will unblock CPS. FWIW (not being an admin), I don't think RickK was in the wrong here. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Death]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 03:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Exactly. The consensus (among the people who read this page) is that the block is appropriate. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 08:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The amount of time spent in pointless, wasteful, inane wiki-lawyering here boggles my mind. Get a life, and use that energy doing something which actually contributes to the real point of this project - produce some content.
Having said that, one comment, about the claim that "administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism". If that were true, all vandals would have to do is sign up for a user-name, and we'd have to resort to the ArbComm to get rid of them. People block vandals with user-names every day. The policy says something rather different. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 14:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: Not really. Why do we have these policies if it is "inane wiki-lawyering" to actually read them? Have you not read the blocking policy? What it actually says is that a logged-in user cannot be banned for vandalism unless the account is used "effectively" only for vandalism. So, yes, what you put forward as obviously stupid is precisely what the policy states: if someone intent on vandalism creates an account and makes some number of reasonable-looking edits, then according to the policy he cannot be blocked for vandalism by an administrator. It also says that a logged-in user cannot be blocked for "isolated vandalism". Presumably the vandal can still be blocked by Jimbo or the ArbComm. I would not argue that this policy is especially logical, but that is what it clearly states. (Really. Read it.) So what is the solution? (1) all the administrators just ignore the policy and try to follow the "unwritten consensus" about when they can block people, whatever they might think that consensus is; or (2) we revise the policy so that it reflects the de facto consensus. It is obvious that most admins have decided on option (1). Since few people seem to care what the policies really state, option (2) is just too much trouble. This is basically my point: the policies are more or less shams and nobody pays much attention to them except when they happen to support his pre-conceived position. When they don't support what someone wants to do -- well too bad for the policy and any "inane wiki-lawyers" with the poor taste and lack of common sense to mention the policies. --[[User:BM|BM]] 14:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Blocking by [[User:Neutrality]] of [[User:24.18.59.229]] for "Vandalism"==
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]] blocked an anonymous user for "vandalism" for 1 week.
The person has protested the blocking on the wikien-l mailing list, claiming, in effect, that it was
not vandalism, but a content dispute with Neutrality regarding the [[Terri Schiavo]] article; specifically he claims that it is a dispute concerning whether the article should mention suspicions about the authenticity of the Republican "talking points" memo. Could Neutrality please provide some links to the
vandalistic edits of this user which warranted the one week ban? --[[User:BM|BM]] 21:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I've no idea about the topic but the anons edits don't look like simple vandalism to me. Since Neutrality didn't (as far as I can see) even warn the user, I've undone the block. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 23:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I'd really like to hear from Neutrality about what he thought the justification was. This seems worse than just an honest mistake, based on a reasonable, but erroneous, interpretation of events. In examining the edit history, it looks like just straight abuse of authority: Neutrality blocked somebody for "vandalism" merely for having a different POV on an article they were both editing. This is especially disheartening considering Neutrality is an arbitrator. --[[User:BM|BM]] 13:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Try asking him on his talk page. Not all admins have this page on their watchlist. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 13:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== User:Wareware - blatant racism, profanity. ==
I posted the following in the Request for Comments section, along with specific examples of the kind of posts to which my complaint refers -- but so far have gotten no meaningful response. I would appreciate this receiving prompt attention from someone.
Thanks. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 23:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
---
The subject has been stalking me from forum to forum since long before these discussion threads represent. I've warned him repeatedly and simply finally decided to report him. There should be absolutely no place on Wikipedia for this kind of blatantly racist vitriol. In the past, I have at times lost patience with him and responded angrily. In the last several weeks, however, I have maintained my composure, admonishing him to stop such behavior -- without success. Interestingly, when I've lost my temper with him (or with other Wikipedians who have engaged in unfortunate behavior directed toward me) other Wikipedians have admonished only me. Keep in mind that the posts that follow are only some of exchanges that have taken place between this user and me. Not once has anyone in these forums reproached this person about his behavior -- not once. This kind of selective treatment and the repeated overlooking of such despicable behavior on the part of a member of the Wiki community is unacceptable. I can only interpret such behavior as racism. It's time for Wikipedia to do something about this individual, and it's time for other Wikipedia members to clean up their act as well in this regard. deeceevoice 13:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Admins cannot ban for personal attacks; this power has been proposed more than once, but never gained acceptance. The RfC is the way to go; if the problem doesn't stop, then the next step is mediation or arbitration. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 23:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Admins can block users for being annoying but not blatantly racist? What a peculiar dividing line. As for whether admins can block for personal attacks, a look at the Block Log since January 1st indicates otherwise:
::*00:09, 11 Mar 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:Martin2000" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attack http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith&diff=11006426&oldid=11005950)
::*05:52, 9 Mar 2005 Mustafaa blocked "User:RICKKSUCKS!" with an expiry time of 24 hours (his/her name is a personal attack, so is his only edit.)
::*22:27, 27 Feb 2005 David Gerard blocked "User:..-.." with an expiry time of infinite (acct only used for personal attacks and trolling)
::*15:26, 27 Feb 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:Osmanoglou" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks, disruption, etc.)
::*09:49, 17 Feb 2005 172 blocked "User:24.150.168.211" with an expiry time of 96 hours (personal attacks, disruption, ranting)
::*21:52, 16 Feb 2005 Eloquence blocked "User:202.175.234.162" with an expiry time of 7 days (personal attacks)
::*03:51, 16 Feb 2005 172 blocked "User:24.150.168.211" with an expiry time of 1 week (personal attacks in edit summary, disruption)
::*00:55, 16 Feb 2005 David Gerard blocked "User:24.150.168.211" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks in edit summaries)
::*21:27, 15 Feb 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:Xed" with an expiry time of 72 hours (profanity and insults on Prof. Rubenstein's talk page)
::*22:26, 14 Feb 2005 Ahoerstemeier blocked "User:66.210.60.166" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks and vandalism)
::*18:01, 14 Feb 2005 CryptoDerk blocked "User:Keetoowah" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks)
::*01:05, 14 Feb 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:User:PSYCH" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Repeated personal attacks after warning/Disruptive user.)
::*22:40, 11 Feb 2005 Postdlf blocked "User:Dnagod" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeated racist attacks on VfD voters)
::*22:40, 11 Feb 2005 Postdlf blocked "User:User:Dnagod" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeated racist attacks on VfD voters)
::*05:26, 11 Feb 2005 RickK blocked "User:Borderer" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks, disgusting invective)
::*07:47, 5 Feb 2005 RickK blocked "User:Amir1" with an expiry time of 24 hours (attacks on other people's religion)
::*18:29, 28 Jan 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:The Number" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks, repeated warnings, second block)
::*22:46, 27 Jan 2005 172 blocked "User:195.70.48.242" with an expiry time of 5 days (Fred Bauder, I was not and I am not in a dispute with this editor. That is a lie. I blocked this user for personal attacks directed at Everyking and causing disruption on Talk:Joseph Stalin while I was UNINVOLVED in the conversation on the page)
::*19:22, 27 Jan 2005 172 blocked "User:195.70.48.242" with an expiry time of 1 week (NO ONE is entitled to cause disruption, troll, and personally attack users on Wikipedia.)
::*22:22, 26 Jan 2005 Violetriga blocked "User:208.62.7.133" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism and offensive attacks)
::*20:41, 26 Jan 2005 172 blocked "User:195.70.48.242" with an expiry time of 1 week (Trolling, personal attacks, ranting)
::*06:07, 26 Jan 2005 RickK blocked "User:63.70.62.84" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks)
::*21:00, 24 Jan 2005 Fvw blocked "User:Jimjo" with an expiry time of 12 hours (repeated personal attacks)
::*17:53, 19 Jan 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:The Number" with an expiry time of 12 hours (personal attacks on Talk:Sollog, was repeatedly warned)
::*15:41, 18 Jan 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:222.126.68.128" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disrupting vfd, attacks, was warned)
::*18:11, 14 Jan 2005 Infrogmation blocked "User:Bleedy" with an expiry time of 48 hours (personal attacks, was warned, has been blocked before)
::I also counted 30 other blocks whose edit summaries cited personal attacks as part of their rationale -- which, if you're correct, they shouldn't be using. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Jayjg is correct that the personal attack policy does not empower admins to enforce it by blocking. There has even been an attempt to gain consensus to revise the policy to allow admins to block people who make personal attacks. This failed. However, this does not stop administrators from blocking people for personal attacks anyway. As you see from Calton's post, in reality it happens all the time. Basically, many of the administrators don't bother too much with policies. They assume authority that they think the policies SHOULD give them, and for which they think there should be consensus, without too much regard for what the policies actually say and what the consensus has proved to be when actually tested by votes, etc. Accordingly, it really shouldn't be hard for deeceevoice to find some admin willing to block wareware for his racist comments. Nevertheless, I would suggest that deeceevoice bring this case to the Arbitration Committee. Because when there are 400+ administrators all deciding for themselves what the policies and consensus are, it might be easy to find an admin to block someone, but it is just as easy to find another admin who will unblock him. It is better to go to the Arbitration Committee so that the block will stick. --[[User:BM|BM]] 01:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*'' Not once has anyone in these forums reproached this person about his behavior -- not once. This kind of selective treatment and the repeated overlooking of such despicable behavior on the part of a member of the Wiki community is unacceptable.'' I can only speak for myself, but I just check VIP and similar sources to see if someone needs blocking, then I investigate and block if I agree with the complaint. If you think this user is being overlooked, you can simply try to get more attention for the issue. But I doubt anyone is being purposely selective. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 11:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, everyone needs to be careful with this complaint until we hear from [[User:Wareware]]. If you look at [[Talk:Afrocentrism]] you will note strongly conflicting viewpoints between these two people on a refractory topic, and that (and similar topics) may be what's behind this. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 14:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:: Looking at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wareware]], WW has made a series of comments (which I hadn't seen before looking at that page) in which they have completely lost it. Alas, admins don't have the power to deal with this, it'll have to go to the ArbComm. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 15:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, there are any number of subjects on Wikipedia on which Wareware and I have differed. [[Afrocentrism]] is by no means the genesis of this. With regard to what is "behind this" ugly, little situation, ideological disputes and differences of opinion are no excuse for this kind of conduct. See the RfC page on Wareware for more information. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 14:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The blocking policy allows for blocks in certain cases based on "disruption". Personal attacks are disruptive. When I see personal attacks as a justification for a block, I treat it as this type of block - basically, the admin is trying to explain exactly what type of disruption was involved. It may be possible to question whether some of these blocks were acceptable based on the policy. However, I don't think that a block reason that mentions personal attacks is automatically invalid. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 00:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner]]==
Despite a straw poll showing an approx. 2:1 ratio against his [[WP:RFDA]] policy proposal, [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] has initiated a proposal to have [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] stripped of his broom. See link in this section header. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I wish I could say I was surprised. First [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] tried to insist his new policy didn't need to be voted on. Then when he actually solicited a vote, and it went 2-1 against the policy, he decided to implement anyway. Is he taking advice from [[User:Iasson]]? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 23:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"''This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators''" - Tony's post is not in scope for this page. This is a petition to measure opinion on this subject of Snowspinner's continued adminship - nothing more. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 00:44, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
:I see one form of administrator intervention that could be applied here: speedy-deleting the page as a personal attack. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 00:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:: What basis do you say this is a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]? I think you need to go read the policy page; you'll see that true personal attacks are quite serious and accusations should not be given out lightly. This petition certainly is ''critical'' of him, but not a personal attack. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 01:07, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
:::It feels like a personal crusade against [[user:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]], an RfC apparently didn't get enough support, the arbcom (incidentally doens't that sound rather [[Orwellian]]?) have rejected more than one request. This doesn't seem to suggest to you that the problem isn't as widespread as you think, and so you use a subpage of a proposed policy that was overwhelmingly rejected to launch a "petition" against him that apparently has nothing to do with that policy. I fail to see what this is if it isn't a personal attack. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 12:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::no, it isn't a personal attack. We are, however, crossing into [[WP:POINT]] territory now. If all available procedures don't yield the desired result, keep inventing new procedures? This will lead nowhere. Let him have his petition, somewhere appropriate, either on RfC, or in his user space, no harm done. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ'''</small>)]] 12:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It seems like a personal attack to me. There are a very few places on Wikipedia where criticism of another Wikipedian is not a personal attack. For example, RFC, RFA, and the Administrator noticeboard and its sub-pages are among the few places where a criticism of another member is not a personal attack, and only if it factual and civil. The RFDA process does not have the consensus of the community behind it. Despite the official sounding title, it is just another Wikipedia namespace article started by Netoholic. Therefore it is not a safe harbour for mounting a criticism/attack of another person. It should simply be deleted. --[[User:BM|BM]] 22:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:criticism should be allowed. sure, netoholics criticism is condemning and repetitive, but saying "snowspinner is doing a terrible job as an admin" should not be considered a personal in the same category with "snowspinner is an ugly, bad man who likes to crucify kittens". it's just pointless to keep aiming potshots at him when nobody else seems to be eager to de-admin him, and of course personality is involved, but that doesn't make it a personal attack in my book. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ'''</small>)]] 08:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Huh. You'd have thought, you know, someone might notify you when they're requesting you be stripped of your admin status. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 22:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
== Requesting lift of protection on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax/redirect-target-000.txt|redirect-target-000.txt]] ==
Earlier today, [[User Talk:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] has unilaterally protected [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax/redirect-target-000.txt|redirect-target-000.txt]], which is part of the [[WP:WS|Wiki Syntax]] cleanup effort, due to a disagreement over redirect deletion policy. This was done without adding the required template, without adding the page to the list, and despite the fact that [[User Talk:Michael Hardy|he]] was directly involved in the argument. I'd like to request a lift of that protection, on the basis that it was applied counter to [[WP:PPol|policy]].
(For those who are interested, I've posted a link to [[Wikipedia Talk:Deletion policy/redirects#Fighting over broken redirects|a summary of the original argument]] over at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Fighting over broken redirects|the policy pump]].)
--[[User:Fbriere|Fbriere]] 06:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I unprotected it with the following clarification: ''Page was protected for a reason not covered by Protection policy. Besides, "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over."'' The debate on Michael Hardy's Talk does indicate that he ''is'' involved in a dispute over this page. [[User:Mark Dingemanse|<nowiki> </nowiki>]]— [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 09:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is a bit of a tempest in a tea-pot. I can't speak for others who may be doing deletions, of course, but I am trying to exercise a considerable amount of care there. As you can see from my note [[WP:RfD#March 17|here]] about this batch, I'm going through this list carefully, and not simply bulk-deleting them. (I even found [[Browning 1919A4|an article]] that had been mistakenly deleted!) Having said that, if anyone else is working on this, I hope they take equal care - there are as many mistakes, etc, here as there are things truly worthy of deletion. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 13:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The protection of this page was terribly inappropriate, and quite frankly, one of the very few things I've seen that qualify as "administrator abuse" rather than "mistake". -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 15:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== Request for IP lookup for KingOfAllPaperboys and 172 ==
I have reported to the arbcom, my suspicion that KingOfAllPaperboys is 172 or some other administrator who has left. I suspect that the committee will be requesting this because I documented my evidence and suspicions here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/172_2/Proposed_decision#Has_172_returned_to_harass_and_disrupt.3F]. Since the information needed will be time sensitive, I am giving y'all a heads up here. It may not be appropriate to reveal the IPs to me? but the results should be sent to the arbcom committee. --[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 14:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*I guess it's always possible, but why would a leaving admin return under a different name? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:58, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
**A fresh start, because old identity has too much baggage? Revenge? Gaming sanctions? This KingOfAllPaperboys has taken an interest in harassing Netoholic.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 15:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whoever he may be, KingOfAllPaperboys is not 172. I'm not aware that 172 ever used sockpuppets for any purpose, and this behavior is not at all 172's style. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 22:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
***What made me suspect 172 was the KingOfAllPaperboys claim that he was not a sockpuppet and challenge to Netoholic to prove that he was. Since 172 had just left wikipedia, once again, earlier in the day, he could technically make that claim. However, 172s return with a different nom de plume, would be a serious breech of trust based on the good faith the arbcom is showing in his representations. KingOfAllPaperboys is merely suggestive and circumstantial. The evidence against 172 being Such as serious possible offense should at least be investigated. Of course another admin using a sockpuppet to harrass would also be a serious offense.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 08:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lots of people don't like Netoholic[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:That's an understatement. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 01:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== Cheese Dreams or her minions ==
A new user, [[User:Arius_Heresiarch]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arius_Heresiarch], made the following change to the [[Cultural and historical background of Jesus]] article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=11057621&oldid=11057608]. This change is identical to the change made by His Own Rectum [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=10301158&oldid=10301098], Their Bowels [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=10300884&oldid=10300669], Red before Blue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=10140249&oldid=10139999], Tigermoon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=10140249&oldid=10139999], Tigermoon, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=10135898&oldid=10135719], Tigermoon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=10135493&oldid=10135330], Neutra|ity [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=10110740&oldid=10110469],81.156.93.188 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=10110740&oldid=10110469], 81.157.11.54 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9979168&oldid=9979101], 81.157.15.105 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9978587&oldid=9978535], 81.156.179.223 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9978321&oldid=9978284], 81.157.101.99 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9977940&oldid=9977766], 81.157.101.99 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9977237&oldid=9977119], 81.157.101.99 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9974022&oldid=9973874], 81.157.101.99 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9973427&oldid=9972828], CHEESEdreams [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9965104&oldid=9964941], Acidmonkey [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9964391&oldid=9963363], Acidmonkey [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9873239&oldid=9872260], Tigermoon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9864871&oldid=9863454], Tigermoon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9859880&oldid=9855822], 217.150.114.18 (also Tigermoon) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=9832045&oldid=9830724]. These are all instances in which CheeseDreams or someone acting on her behalf deleted the article, reached through a long process by many editors, and replaced it with her own version. This matter was addressed by the ArbCom twice ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams first ruling], in which she was banned from editing Christianity-related articles for one year[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams_2 second ruling], in which she was banned for 6 months for disregard for previous rulings by the arbitration committee; 3 months for abuse of Wikipedia processes and procedures; 3 months for abuse of sockpuppet accounts). I believe Arius Heresiarch is either a sock-puppet of CheeseDreams or of Tigermoon. All of his/her changes were on March 12; s/he also made a change to the Arianism article that was reverted, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Arius_Heresiarch]. If this is not the appropriate place to request action, I'd appreciate it if someone would let me know, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 19:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Blocked for a year as a reincarnation/impersonation (either prong will do). --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 22:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==[[User:Albanau]]==
[[User:Albanau]] moved the [[Origin of Albanians]] article to [[Testttttttttttt]] and then wrote "delate" all over it.
The only reason why the page didn't wind up getting deleted is because it has block compression problems. I just happened to notice an extensive edit history and had to work my way through things to try to figure out what was going on. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 09:07, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
| 