Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive71

There is now a user Chooserrr who is imitating me. I don't know what to do. Someone please help before he destroys my good name. Chooserr 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead. -Splash^talk 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Chooserr 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Petahomes

I was wondering is this person an imposter too. She claims that she's an admin, but according to the history she created the account today. Chooserr 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Already been killed by the real Petaholmes. -Splash^talk 01:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This user's only edits consist of adding a sock tag to User:SarekOfVulcan's page, accusing him of being a Chooserrr (or however many r's it is) sock, reverting it when I removed it for lack of evidence, and removing a sock tag I placed for the following reason: to insinuate that SoV was a sock would require prior knowledge of edit histories that new users wouldn't have, so it would seem to me that P0P0 is himself a sock. he has ben blocked, and his pages blanked. I'm certain he is a sock (otherwise none of this makes sense), but I don't know who he is a sock of. Could someone look into this? MSJapan 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked.--

(talk)

04:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And Zephram's ban reset, of course..--

(talk)

06:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should Cheese Curd be added to the list of resetting socks on Zephram's user page? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Per his ArbCom case, Netoholic is under a mandatory

However, Neto is currently party to five different revert wars, on three templates ({{

Hence, he has been blocked for 24 hours. Netoholic is requested to discuss controversial changes on the relevant talk pages, and to seek consensus on the issues involved. >Radiant< 11:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed those templates and the changes Netoholic made. I don't find any of the edits disruptive, and he did discuss his changes on Template talk:Languageicon. I am unblocking him. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone else has unblocked him. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He is pushing his essay on

WP:AUM now. _→AzaToth

16:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Neto's block history show a remarkable facility for being unblocked without actually reforming his behaviour? In the last month he has been blocked 4 times for edit-warring and breaching his ArbCom restrictions, only to be unblocked almost immediately with a comment along the lines of "you children really should learn to get along": on 2 of those occasions a 24-hour block was reversed within 20 minutes, and on one occasion having been unblocked 5 hours into a 24-hour block, he was re-blocked 90 minutes later for continuing to "make threats".

Those of us who have borne the brunt of his bad temper end up feeling like the victim of the school bully who is the "teachers' pet": we simply get patted on the head and told that we're probably provoking him. Neto began his

Is there any chance that someone who has been the subject of an ArbCom case, and been heavily restricted as a result, might be actually made subject to those restrictions, or must those of us who have never even yet been the subject of an RFC continue to

I think my block history shows that some admins are more than willing to "shoot the messenger". Every blocking admin was directly involved in a dispute with me either over a specific template they

WP:AUM guideline itself. Wikipedia should be proud of the fact that there are more admins that can see through these sorts of non-neutral blocks. -- Netoholic @

17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, so it ate my edit summary, you might have noticed I've just archived per David Gerard. So, I did. I think I failed to mess it up. InkSplotch^(talk) 15:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, no, I did. I archived it to Archive26 instead of IncidentArchive71. Sorry, folks. I put in for a move, it ought to right itself shortly. I hope. InkSplotch^(talk) 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound territorial, because, really, I'm not, but you messed it up in pretty much every way imaginable - you archived discussions not even two hours old, created a new archive when the old one was only 20k long, pasted the contents into a

Cryptic (talk)

15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, please, I think I need to be hit over the head with a very large 2X4 at this point. I've been picking up quite a lot through observation, but I wasn't ready to attempt such a large edit on my own. My humble apologies. InkSplotch^(talk) 15:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Full points for good faith and boldness though :-)

(I had to ask for an archive rather than doing it myself because the 428K edit box was manifesting the Mozilla bug where typing goes r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y. I suppose I should upgrade Firefox to 1.5, really. Or try SeaMonkey.) - David Gerard 16:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm running on 1.5 and that doesn't actually help. I'd suggest writing in notepad and cut/pasting into the edit box. >Radiant< 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion for archiving

OK... if I'm reading the History right User:InkSplotch archived the whole page "per David Gerard" (who had asked for archiving because the page was so big, but had not expressed any wish that active discussions be buried alive). If I had noticed before a lot of new stuff had been added to the page, I would have reverted. The lively discussion I came here to post on has been left in the air, for example. We have an archiving bot, right? The bot archives discussions that have had no input for three days. If the page still gets too large (yes, I know that the page still does get too large), I suggest that the bot be set to archive after a day and a half, as a better alternative than killing active discussions ad hoc from time to time. Can we agree to change the setting of the archivebot, please? Bishonen | talk 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Yes, David's request was simply to "archive" without details (it's available in the History from my link above), and my main fault was trying to archive things the same way I've seen people archive their talk pages - en masse. As soon as Cryptic pointed out what I'd done to active discussions (not to mention fumbling where I put the archive, and fouling up the nav boxes), I realized that a page like this has to be handled differently. I put that up to my own inexperience.

As for bots, well, I noticed the nav boxes seem to update via bots, but I don't know about the main page. If there is such a bot for archiving this page, may I suggest a (templated?) notice to keep well-meaning sorts like myself out of trouble? If there isn't, then I'm going to pay closer attention to how this page is manually archived around active/inactive discussions and perhaps go make some updates to

WP:Archive. I'll make something useful out of myself if it kills me. InkSplotch^(talk

) 17:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a mention in the page header that it's archived by bot. —

Cryptic (talk)

17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I can, probably without too much trouble, make the bot tailor the lagtime such that the current page is a given length after archiving. Pick a size and I'll see what I can do. (For the record, I think the root problem is that too much is posted here that should be somewhere else - straightforward requests to block a user (with subsequent comments about the lingerie), or protect a page, or edit a protected page - and we should just move them to the proper place. Or I can make the bot look for sections with little <!--archivenow--> html comments and archive those immediately when it sees them regardless of the timestamps.) —

Cryptic (talk)

17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, hm, did you mean "If the page still gets too large" to be determined by a human, and just to run the bot as it currently does, only set to 36 hours? That's just a one-line configuration change. —

Cryptic (talk)

17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You could perhaps make it so that, if the page is over 256kiB, it agressively prunes sections until it falls below that mark, even if 36 hours didn't pass yet (of course, archiving the older sections first). --cesarb 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that if the general feeling is that the page often or sometimes gets too large, the setting should be changed. I propose that we do feel that. (Not that I know what zese problems are whereof you speak, using Mozilla for OSX as I am.) I like cesarb's suggestion, it sounds better than the simple change from 72 to 36 hours that I was thinking of. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

I've programmed cesarb's suggestion; I don't doubt we'll balloon back up above 256k by midnight tomorrow. —

Cryptic (talk)

21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to to know why the Gazeebow Unit discussion was archived while it was still active. I would hate to assume bad faith ... User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So pull it back out. It's currently in

Cryptic (talk)

17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• As suggested on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, we simply need to split the noticeboard in several sections. >Radiant< 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And/or possibly be more aggressive about moving conversations to more appropriate venues when they get discursive, á la the Clerks discussion. Ideally, noticeboards should have entries that are short and current. Demi ^T/_C 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I archived the first 50 subject headers, I didn't factor for dates. So, Gazeebow Unit was just on the wrong side of the chopping block. As Cryptic says, feel free to pull it back out. Myself, I'm keeping my mitts off for now. I missed the fine print about the archive bot before, I don't want to get in it's way again. InkSplotch^(talk) 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of the bot having the ability to archive sections tagged with html comments, as mentioned above. This would allow us to tag such sections that clearly won't generate any more discussion and help us cut down the page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I also see the possibility for abuse the moment someone uses such tags to prematurely end a discussion. InkSplotch^(talk) 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but because this page is so closely monitored the tag could easily be reverted or removed for clearly active discussions. The 'bot wouldn't archive immediately. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's really a concern (and I suppose it could probably sneak past in the middle of a long, eye-glazing ramble easily enough), it could look instead look for some template that displays as "This section will soon be automatically archived." —

Cryptic (talk)

21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Dtasripin (talk · contribs) for making repeated personal attacks. He has been warned several times [1] [2] [3], but removed the warnings [4], which led another user to warn [5] for another personal attack [6] instead of taking increased action.

I bring this up not just to draw attention to the block, but to the removal of behavior warnings as a method to avoid consequences for bad behavior. We have generally "frowned upon," but not taken any action regarding, a user who removes such warnings from their talk page. But I think this stems from a day when most regulars had a general idea of what was going on with most problem users, and this isn't the case anymore. Most likely, if I am looking into bad behavior I won't know what warnings someone has received in the past, and with an extensive talk page history I don't think it's reasonable to delve through every one looking to see if they are there. That means that everyone who issues warnings has to keep an "eye" on people they've warned, lest they avoid further consequences for their bad behavior. I suggest instead we make it a practice generally to revert the removal of behavior warnings on user talk pages.

Demi ^T/_C 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Demi. Behaviour warnings should stick. However, as with anything, how long for? I'd say a few months: an editor may not be bad forever. They may still reform: we do live in hope! I personally have never seen such a thing, but one day it may happen. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's hard to require it, for the same reason

WP:3RR generally isn't applied to user's edits on their own talk page: it makes too easy a playground for trolls. For now, let's just see if clicking on talk page history isn't onerous for admins warning people - David Gerard

16:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not connecting the dots--if I understand correctly, you think it would be easy for a troll to make a spurious such a "warning" on a user's talk page, and rely on this practice to replace it when it was removed? Demi ^T/_C 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Spurious warnings are against policy. Removing them is not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How about non-spurious ones? If we continue to let these disappear, then many users with behavioral problems may be stuck at the eternal "first warning." Demi ^T/_C 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, they'd stick until they were "properly" archived. But as David says, we have no real policy about how people manage their talk page in general, and many "editors in good standing" delete messages from their page, so it's hard to tell the "bad editors" they mustn't, or that warning messages are the unstated exception. (Recently I replaced such warnings on someone's talk page, twice, only to be told that I'd reverted five times, and thus needed to be blocked (and incidentally that another party had also reverted five times (when they had not), and needed to be blocked). He, OTOH, despite having 3RR'd both on this occasion and many recent priors, was of course being "unfairly" blocked. Silly me for not working all that out, obviously.)

In extreme cases, there's the option of adding them to the user:-space page and protecting, but that's not reasonable for simple warnings. The most likely karmic comeback for this is if someone files a 3RR or other "incident" report, and mentions the earlier warning(s) and removal of same, the admin attending to it is likely to take this into account, and if so very likely to the further detriment of the offending party. Alai 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please block

Cuñado - Talk

Requests for administrator intervention (specifically, requests for blocks of vandals) should go to

WP:AIV. Thanks! (FWIW, the user(s) haven't edited in a few hours and is a shared network, so I don't think a block will be necessary now.) Flcelloguy (A note?

) 20:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=213.86.16.169

Please block and revert Midgley 18:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted and warned about spamming. No need for a block at present. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you can request blocks of vandals at

WP:AIV. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?

) 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User 169.253.4.21 has been making what I would consider POV edits and reverts on the page titled Ollanta Humala. I made a revert to his edits and put "See Talk Page" in the page history. He reverted the page back without speaking about it on the talk page. I reverted it back and told him in his talk page as well as the page history to see the article's talk page. Again, he reverted it back without any discussion. From his talk page it seems that this user has had problems before, having been threatened to be banned by an admin Viajero.-Jersey Devil 20:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this person is blocked already, but just look at their history page. --204.152.176.70 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Was blocked 26 Jan [7], no new contributions since. -
  Mailer Diablo
  21:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You can report any persistent vandalism at

WP:AIAV. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t

22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out this diff.

I have to say I don't particularly agree with Jimbo's reasoning here. We ought to at least know what the complaint was about, otherwise how are we to know what's being disputed here? -- ChrisO 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A relatively harmless action like this, which makes nothing unavailable, is certainly within the discretion of a reasonable editor; especially one that we can expect to receive private complaints from time to time. Demi ^T/_C 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced Jimbo's blanking, by the way. Demi ^T/_C 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Demi - Jimbo's actions seem reasonable based upon what we can know from the diffs and the explanation Jimbo gave. I have personally removed comments from a Talk page when I had reason to believe they were harmful. As Demi says, the info is still in the history if it is needed for the discussion. This is a reasonable middle-ground between ignoring the complaint and over-reacting to the complaint by deleting page history. Johntex\^talk 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what Jimbo actually says: "As a courtesy to a complainant, I have blanked this talk page. I'm not sure what the complaint meant exactly, but I see no harm in blanking this." If we don't even know what the complaint is about, how do we know not to add the disputed material back into the talk page or article? Are we even able to determine that the complaint isn't frivolous? I think we need better visibility of complaints than this... -- ChrisO 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo's reasoning behind this even though I'm still complained why the complaint was made and what prompted it. What I do not agree with at all however is posting on AN/I just because somebody reverted Jimbo. Just because it's Jimbo doesn't make it a big deal, should I start posting here whenever I revert another editor because I will if it will help?

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, fairly obviously no, because Jimbo isn't just another editor. What he does in cases like this has policy implications for all of us. -- ChrisO 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this complaint was "Marc Tufano" related. A few weeks back, an anonymous user (195.93.*.*, AOL in the UK) kept adding "Marc Tufano" information (hoax or prank) into various articles including

I suspect it was that odd message posted to Talk:List of characters from EastEnders, signed under the name of "MS Tufano", that was the reason for the blanking. It's not clear what this person is referring to, I think possibly some kind of family or child custody type dispute (based on some other talk page messages which I can't find a link for at the moment).

Still, blanking the entire talk page was overkill, as there were perfectly valid discussions on other topics such as "Little Mo/Kacey Ainsworth" which were only a few days old and not in need of archiving. Why not just remove the Tufano stuff if necessary and leave the rest? -- Curps 22:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that matters like this promote a certain "huh?" factor when it's not 100% clear in what capacity it's being done (maybe we should develop a Wikipedia:Simon Says policy to the effect that one must announce "in my capacity as an admin/bureaucrat/FAD/arbcom member/developer/godking/other I hereby..."), nor why it's being done. So people don't know if they're "allowed" to undo the edit, or what other solutions might achieve the desired effect. So in this case, an obvious alternative is to archive (the whole page, or the particular section in question, if that is the particular section), but if what's wanted is to (in the fullness of time) take the page off google and the mirrors too, that might not be sufficient. I'm extrapolating here from the reasoning expressed in a similar concern about AfD archives. Obviously the material's still in the history anyway, so total elimination of this material isn't at issue at present, and would require further admin action. Alai 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't feel Jimbo should be blanking pages like that. I also don't think that Demi should have reinstated the blanked page after it had been reverted. If that had been any other editor, people would have been screeching on ANI about how unilateral and bad faith it was. I'm inclined to restore the comments. Again.

I'd suggest that a consensus be reached before a wheel war is begun. The reasonings behind such blankings aren't to obscure prior discussion, they are to prevent the often-negative nature of such discussions to be indexed by search engines. Due to Wikipedia's high rankings in search engines such as Google, a discussion filled with comments such as "Person isn't notable at all, not important, DELETE" can rise to the top of search results for a person's name, even if they had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the article in question. I think we can all agree that this is not an aim of Wikipedia.

How about some sort of boilerplate message be applied to pages blanked in this fashion referring viewers to look at the history of the page in question for past discussion? In this way, absolutely no discussion is lost, and any user, anonymous, users, and administrators alike, can view the discussion, without it possibly affecting the person/organization personally. Thoughts? --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this, and I support blankings of this sort in the future, though perhaps more selective if there is ongoing discussion about other topics. It removes the main source of harm while leaving discussion available in history. And for the record, if this had been any other editor, I should hope no one would have immediately gone "screeching [...] about how unilateral and bad faith it was", but would, rather, ask first why it was done. If the reason was not "I wanted to vandalize pages!"—which it generally isn't—surely either a compromise could be found (such as, say, a boilerplate message saying the discussion has been removed, please see history) or a more helpful explanation given for those who might question it. (As for Jimbo's actions, I do tend to assume he's got some sort of good reason for them and deserves at least to be heard out.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say, the power of a single not-sure-what-it-means complaint to effect the removal of potentially upsetting content is quite impressive. Hmmm, let's give this a try:

Dear Jimbo,

Dirka dirka Muhammad (pbuh) jihad dirka dirka

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons dirka!" [8]

Should work like a charm. :-) -- Curps 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The one-man struggle to "reform" DRV continues: Patrick Alexander, Colony5. Admin tools are not toys, and having them doesn't mean you get to do whatever you'd like. A good rule of thumb might be if you're the only one who has to keep undoing something, than perhaps you should stop doing it? -

For some reason, this one user gets to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without so much as a slap on the wrist. It's getting mighty old. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think an arbcom case will result in any restrictions. DES ^(talk) 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering an RFC at this point, though I doubt it will do any good. In addition to the above cases, we have two out-of-process deletions, both of which are currently on

WP:DRV and will result in the same pointless, sterile arguments all over again. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS

) 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew it was Tony Sidaway before I even clicked on the links.--Alhutch 01:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As did I. That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the solution? I don't think an RfC will do much good.--Alhutch 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Form your own wheel to combat it or do nothing. Chooserr 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, what's wrong with unprotecting a page, with a review notice, so that the history can be reviewed? Tony drives me nuts sometimes too--there are times I wish he were more patient--but the reason he'll never be reprimanded is that he's usually doing the right thing out-of-process. That's better than doing the wrong thing in-process. So, uh, chill out. -- SCZenz 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• We must begin with the definition of the "right" thing to do, upon which there is clearly disagreement. These actions are not anti-process but anti-consensus. Despite cries of "moribund" and "process wonking" by IAR bandits, what is being discarded is careful, thoughtful discussion by editors who understand there exists a place for respectful disagreement and eventual compromise.
• Additionally, the measure of the "sucess" of Tony's actions is remarkably flexible. The deletion of several pseudo-attack templates is an excellent example. TfD was bypassed (Because they would never have been deleted? So much for respecting consensus.) in favour of speedy deletion, and then the extensive wheel warring where Tony deleted {{User GWB}} five times is dismissed as "a bit of a kerfuffle" and declared a "good way to cook". Again and again we have disruption and discord trailing in Mr. Sidaway's wake, with debate and discourse an after thought at best.
• Tony is an almost endless sink of productivity, and the time and energy that he saps from the project as established, productive contributors trail along cleaning up after him is beyond belief. This is best illustrated by another of his "successes", where contrast between the input and the output is stark indeed.

brenneman^(t)(c)

02:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Marvelous summary. Mr. Sidaway's and company "IAR" philosophy have led me to curtail my WP time from 2 hours/day to about 5 mins/day, and I am patient. God knows how many others have given up in frustration with such outlandish, unrepentent, counterproductive egotism. Xoloz 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The surest reason to initiate an RFC is that you feel nothing will be accomplished by it. Don't let fear of the status quo or fear of retribution change the way you express your values. This is a community project, and no one user is allowed to change the way things work. We work on consensus.

The hilarity for me has been watching a malformed RFC start, get 20+ supports for Tony, then actual charges get added, see many people suddenly taking it seriously, and then seeing Tony crow that everyone agrees with what he's doing. It's depressing, of course. It is not better to do the right thing out of process than the wrong thing in process. It is better to follow the rules that apply to all, to get feedback from others, and to change the procedures if they're wrong. What you don't get to do is what Tony does fairly consistently: announce that he doesn't care if other administrators disagree with him, because "You'll never stop us" and use the admin tools to enforce his will. It is the crux of what has brought him and Snowspinner, above others, to so many RFC's and RFar's. Both fellows have their good points. Snowspinner and I agree more often than not on blocking problem users (I'm quick on the trigger). Tony and I agree to a large degree on what a good article looks like. That can't cover over or excuse deciding to wheel war and give the middle finger to one's fellow admins. (And I've been here longer than both of them, too, if it comes to that.) Geogre 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why feed him? Just ignore him and he'll probably start doing something more useful with his time.Grace Note 03:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Normally, that's the right strategy, but Tony mucks things up, and someone has to revert his "kerfluffery." That's more than enough response from others to feed him and keep his anti-social tendencies going. Xoloz 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but please don't be "driven off". There's plenty to be "driven into"! Grace Note 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, I do agree strongly with Geogre. There's a huge gap between "ignore all rules" and "ride roughshod over everyone else's opinion". Tony's often on the wrong side of that gap. If he knows he's right, why not trust the community and convince them of his rightness? I asked the same question in re Gmaxwell: do we just shit on each other because we're convinced we're "doing the right thing"? Is that how it is? Grace Note 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC against Tony Sidayway

I believe this must not continue. The incident listed above, together with this are too much. It is perfectly OK to disagree with other people and defend your position, but using the admin tools towards that end is abuse of the tools. An RFC may not lead anywhere but must be attempted, and if that fails, the next step should be a request for arbitration. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Tony's been RfC'ed before, and (since he was just made a clerk of ArbCom), RfAr chances are bad, but I'll give you an award for courage if you go forward. I'll certify anything reasonable, after giving another try at discussion with Tony directly. Xoloz 04:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

While Tony has the support of the arbcom, any attempt to moderate his behaviour like this is pointless. Grace Note 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But not starting the process is cowardice and only exacerbates the problem. If nobody does anything about it, the actions will continue. Not trying is criminal.

Avriette

04:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the ArbCom cabal, I suspect — I have reason to believe Tony is being inspired by a higher level of anti-Wikipedian conspirator. Note also this quote - David Gerard 13:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OUCH! I edited David's comment by mistake. [9] Is it fixed now?

Funny, I read that quotation, and interpret it to mean, "Delete as much crap as possible, and keep it deleted." Undeletion out-of-process doesn't help kill crap. Xoloz 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The God-Emperor of Wikipedia could (gasp!) just be wrong. Considering this quote that quote and the fact that people are upset at deleted articles getting resurrected, it looks that careless deletion of valuable articles isn't the problem that some make it out to be. Pilatus 16:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Refraining from action because of a supposed special status simply confers that status, similar to a self fulfilling prophecy. Paul August ☎ 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing some rather vague statements about disruption here, but nothing specific. Please do make an RfC and we'll try to sort it out. --Tony Sidaway 05:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, re:Geogre's comments about mal-formed RfC's, please begin at

brenneman^(t)(c)

05:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I think that it's a total waste of time as RfC has no teeth, but it's better than just kvetching. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

05:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a start where you said, at User:Aaron Brenneman/RfC draft. I don't think it should take two weeks to get this done. The statement of the RFC is pretty clear, and I think it should stay focused: "Wheel warring is not acceptable". I would htink more evidence is needed, certification, and we can push it forward. (I must go to bed now, so can't dig for more evidence). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems that Aaron overwrote my version, but either way, the hope is that the RFC will lead anywhere. Wheel warring is just not justifiable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing evidence of this "wheel warring". --Tony Sidaway 06:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's up above, but: [10]. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

06:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lest this get any more entrenched, position-wise, than it strictly needs to be, can I offer the thought that ideally, this would be a means of dialogue, rather than an alternative to it, and a RFC on TS, not "against" him? It may be a long shot at actually resolving anything, but that's precisely what it's intended to be, not just grist to the RFAr mill, or the like. Alai 06:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Alai. An RfC is supposed to be a way to improve dialog and resolve disputes, and so I have found them to be in the past. My first RfC led to an understanding of the sheer gulf between two different kinds of thinking on RfC closes--akin to the "bottle half empty/bottle half full" gulf between personalities. In my second RfC I was happy to have a chance to embrace and endorse the civility policy. When I finally formulate a clear idea of what the third RfC is about, then I've no doubt that it will improve my understanding of Wikipedia even further. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bypassing *FD is something he probably shouldn't have done in a number of cases, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with temporary undeleting something for discussion at DRV. it makes the process a lot more transparent and not just available to admins. That's a good thing. Temporary undeletion doesn't mean it will get to stay. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony has also been unprotecting the articles after they are undeleted, and then proceeded to list them on AFD, thereby forking the discussion into two different forums. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I suspect that much of the problem would go away of there were an agreed and more or less standard process for making articles available during DRV, rather than individual admins making it up as we go along.

I know DRV is not supposed to be about content but about process. But that seems to have crept somewhat (due in no small part to discussion on wikien-l, which is all very nice but not really a substitute for discussion here). The upshot is that Tony considers, not without justification, that it is helpful to see the article content during DRV because in the end this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia so content is the be-all and end-all. I think that end can be served by undeleting and then immediately replacing with a template noting the DRV. For articles which are not particularly damaging replacing is probably excessive, but some undoubtedly are damaging so we need to allow for that. Tony also wants people to be able to "save" the article during DRV. That is not really what DRV is about, but it is what WP is about, so I have some sympathy for that, too, but with contested deletions there is a strong risk of sockfests and multiple nonsense, so if an admin bringing an article to DRV deems it appropriate to lock the article it seems to me wrong to undo that without consent.

It's all very well to say "fuck process" but in the end process is what stops rogue individuals. Nobody think they themselves are a rogue individual, of course, but there must be some reason why every society of any respectable size feels the need to establish some rules and guidelines... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Err, one point. DRV is a check to ensure we on AfD don't delete anything we shouldn't have. If DRV finds that an AfD was carried out properly, but that the article deleted is really rather valuable, then the appropriate result would not be "tough luck, the AfD was completely within process". Wikipedia is not the real world, and we're under no obligation to follow the norms of real-world "appeals courts" just because we have things that could be considered (if you squint a bit) equivalent. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of course. But that does not mean that an AfD which has achieved consensus for keep or delete should be overturned because a small cabal on DRV decides they simply like the article. Otherwise every single AfD debate is going to have to be hashed out twice. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is about content, and the rules and procedures exist solely to enable us to produce that content. I have argued that, unless there is a good reason not to, we should undelete articles and make them editable while their deletion is being discussed in good faith on Wikipedia:Deletion_review. I obtained a broad consensus on this--there were very few who disagreed. However there are a few people who disagree and they have done their level best to stop articles being visible to ordinary users and, where visible, to stop them being edited. I think this is a bad thing, for nothing is served by those actions. They are unequivocally bad for the encyclopedia. -- Tony Sidaway, 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Requests for Lynching (section break)

I find it interesting to see people accused of undue process obsession decide to hold a lynching, then spend tens of thousands of words thrashing out a precise process for the lynching - David Gerard 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, judging by the statements of several people above, the sentiment exists that it is impossible to get dispute resolution involving, or sanction against, people who have friends in high-up places. It would be very disturbing if that were true, and it is well worth investigating why several good editors believe the ArbCom is not the penultimate neutral party that it ought to be. >Radiant< 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom will never have the kind of neutrality that some people expect. Arbcom will always be biases towards protecting the encyclopedia. People who have other interests besides the encyclopedia have to adjust their thinking to that reality if they expect to be counted as "good editors". --JWSchmidt 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect because the AC is more concerned with good sense than torturous procedure, even torturous procedure in the best of faith. But I'm not on it any more (I'm just another editor and admin now), so I might be wrong - David Gerard 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it hilarious to watch this arguing over the correct procedure to "get" Tony, when it's obvious that no one has even begun the process for developing the plan to generate a schedule to outline Wikipedia:Requests for Lynching (WP:RfL). ➥the Epopt 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I shall not be got. Although the RfC severe flaws, I have taken its intent, which is based on serious concerns, in good faith, and have made a sensible initiative to address those concerns:

* Tony's response

This seems to me to be a reasonable trade-off between doing what is sensible and keeping people, who may not have quite the same opinion of what is going on, from getting upset. -Tony Sidaway 16:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems a not unreasonable response, and probably all that could have been expected from a formal RfC in any case. And I might add that lynchings are IMO currently out-of-process :) DES ^(talk) 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have the shortcut at

WP:ROFL ? Yeesh. -- nae'blis _(talk)

20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The first would argue that, to follow proper process, Tony should be listed on Wikipedia:Users for lynching and lynched after consensus is achieved over a period of seven days.

The second will point out that, as Tony qualifies as a Rouge Admin (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy lynching), he can be lynched immediately without the need for a full discussion.

The third will argue that, while Tony may not meet the criteria for speedy lynching per se, IAR allows lynching him immediately and listing him on Wikipedia:Lynching review to see if anyone disagrees. —Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• How can you say that! We haven't even elected a Wikipedia:Lynching committee yet! (and of course There Is No Lynch Cabal). We really should discuss that over lynch some time. >Radiant< 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should Lynching Review concern itself with the content of the request for lynching, or only with whether the process of the lynching was completely as specified per

ISO 9001:2000? Process is important - David Gerard

16:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nobody is to lynch anybody until the Lynchmaster blows the whistle — even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say, "Jehovah". >Radiant< 16:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The community does not have the power to lynch people. It mearly has the ability to put them in the stocks for an indefinate period of time before handing them over to arbcom if it so choses.Geni 19:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to congratulate the maturity of everyone involved here for taking other people's concerns seriously. Wikipedia never fails to strike me as a harmonious and civil working environment. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Phil's sarcasm does not count; he had insufficient cynical edits as of 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC). ➥the Epopt 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Holding a Lynching?

Why is it considered to be "holding a lynching" to express what seem to me to be good faith concerns about Tony's actions? Paul August ☎ 19:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• A recurring problem on the Wikipedia is that (some) people who are often opposed by trolls or idiots eventually jump to the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them must be a troll or idiot. Fundamental attribution error, for the psych majors among you. >Radiant< 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a lynching when a mob of angry people get together under a banner (okay, a section head) readingRFC against Tony Sidayway and plan how they are going to "get" him. And I have to wonder: if it's this difficult to find a way to "get" him, could it be that maybe he shouldn't be "got"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Epopt (talk • contribs)

• Yes, it would be. But you're assuming here that this is a "mob" of people, and that they're actually "angry". Oleg's words were "An RFC may not lead anywhere but must be attempted, and if that fails, the next step should be a request for arbitration". That doesn't sound all that rabid to me. Tony himself states that "An RfC is supposed to be a way to improve dialog and resolve disputes, and so I have found them to be in the past" so he doesn't seem to mind. Thus I'd say it's hardly appropriate for others to characterize that as lynching. >Radiant< 01:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely disappointed in the attitudes expressed by the Epopt and David Gerard. I'd ask them to think carefully if they believe that the manner in which they have chosen to express themselves lends itself to the good of the encyclopedia, which they claim to be protecting. -
    brenneman^(t)(c)
    03:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the good faith of anyone involved in this. I do question their judgement. I think that's a fair call considering this is life imitating uncyclopedia (the reason is different, the process is as I described). I mean, wtf - David Gerard 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Epopt, can you please be more specific? What exactly is inappropriate about Oleg's concerns? Paul August ☎ 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All I know about this dispute is what's currently here on ANI, but... humor is an extremely important tool in many functioning work and social groups. The root cause of this (people upset at Tony) is a valid concern regardless of which side is right or wrong, and this discussion looks useful, but I see no harm in it turning to the slighly silly as Tony seems to be responding in a positive and non-confrontational manner to the criticisms. It would be inappropriate as a response to a flame war, but given what seems to be happening, ... shrug.

There seems to be no lack of agreement to protect the encyclopedia; protecting people's good relations is also important, and humor helps there. Or at least that's how it seems to me. Your mileage may vary, void in states where prohibited by law, every ANI posting comes with five free Ginsu steak editors... Georgewilliamherbert 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it seems to me that people involved in the dispute resolution process (such as arbiters) should not disregard a dispute out of hand. Even if the accusations made by either party are unfounded, there's still a dispute that would be better of resolved. Even if there were a lynch mob, a dispute involving a lynch mob can be resolved in other ways than by giving in to the mob's demands, or by ignoring it. >Radiant< 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess the thing that makes it seem more about "getting Tony" than actually resolving something is that Tony Sidaway long since volunteered to address some of the concerns in the putative RFC, before it ever even existed. Yet we're still talking about this. Demi ^T/_C 16:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, we're not talking about Tony any more (who, indeed, took this issue quite well, asked what was wrong, and addressed the concerns), we're talking about the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of the word "lynching" to discount a perceived dispute. >Radiant< 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that David and The Epopt got it spot on, actually. It's natural to think in terms of disciplinary action if one sees someone engaging in a practise that seems to be against the rules. But that's not how we do it here on Wikipedia. Like everybody else I have a talk page. The only edit that has ever been made on that talk page by Oleg Alexandrov, who started this discussion, is this one notifying me that he had started discussing an RfC--this very discussion. Moreover, taking a casual look at his editing history I see nothing to suggest that our paths might ever have crossed on Wikipedia.

Supporting this odd initiative was Aaron Brenneman, an otherwise good editor who has often been described by one serving arbitrator (who otherwise admires him, as do I) as having "a Tony-sized hole in his judgment" [11], and whose last edit on my user talk page, in response to a polite complaint by me about his recent personal attacks on me, was a curt and rude message asking me not to put messages on his talk page. So, not attempt at communication there, either.

Now this is not the way we do things on Wikipedia. If we think that the encyclopedia is being damaged by someone, we ask them to stop in the first instance. If we don't do that, well it's not exactly wrong--as in this case an adept and courteous editor can handle such heavy-handed actions with ease--but it could rather, if it became commonplace, turn disputes into a kind of lynching. I think that the recent abuses of the RfC process, such as the Kelly Martin RfC, may have given some people altogether the wrong idea about the nature of Wikipedia and the role of the community (hint: it isn't the government of Wikipedia) and that it would be just as well if this way of treating serious disputes didn't become commonplace. I can handle it because I'm pretty resilient and very sure of my ground. Less experienced, or less adept, editors, might well be driven off by such treatment. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So basically what you are saying Tony, is that Oleg should have discussed this first with you on your talk page. I agree that probably would have been better (by the way, I think your response to the draft RfC has been very constructive, thanks). But I don't think it helps to characterize his actions as an attempted "lynching". I know Oleg well. He is a thoughtful and considered editor, who is an outstanding contributer to the encyclopedia. I think he has legitimate good faith concerns (as do other editors) about the appropriateness of some of your actions. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that he seems to be a thoughtful and considered editor. And for me this way of starting a discussion on his concerns worked okay. But I think your average Wikipedia editor, administrator, even, might have felt a little intimidated by his style of approach, which was to go to a discussion forum intended for handling serious incidents and discuss his intention of opening an RfC on a person whom he has never once approached to discuss his problems, and in the same edit to raise the possibility of arbitration. This is not the way we proceed on Wikipedia, and I sincerely hope that it never becomes commonplace. David Gerard and The Epopt are experienced Wikipedians with, between them, four years of experience on the arbitration committee. They're not given to hyperbole. This approach to dispute resolution could, if it took off, become lynch law. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok I agree with you that this could have been handled better, and we don't want this approach to become the norm. Can you also agree with me that it is unhelpful to describe Oleg's actions as an attempted lynching? In my view such a characterization is unjustified. Paul August ☎ 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No. As I said before, I think the characterization is spot on. This kind of behavior should not be encouraged because it will lead to good editors being driven away over what are, when all is said and done, quite minor questions such as whether and when an article whose deletion is challenged should be visible to those who are making decisions about whether it should be permanently undeleted.

The power to undelete an article temporarily already resides with individual administrators, and the power to edit articles already resides with editors. This was a case, perhaps, for a sit down and a bit of a natter so that differences of opinion (already aired in various forums, but evidently that was not enough for some) could be resolved.

Coming to

WP:AN/I to air personal grievances only serves to worsen the unhealthy, punitive atmosphere. Oleg was not the only participant in this and he wasn't the first to brandish a torch. But it's not him I'm focussing on, but this kind of hysterical reaction of which his behavior--as someone who had never once edited my talk page and as far as I am aware had never interacted with me in any way--was a part. --Tony Sidaway

21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Demi's block was fair enough. But I don't agree that ChrisO who was involved in the revert war should have blocked me especially since it wasn't exactly a 3rr. I tried to contact him by email and through my talk page about the block but he didn't respond. Also I didn't know I could unblock myself; I tried it so I could inform Chris but still couldn't edit until about five minutes later when I thought that Chris had unblocked me. However I have no hard feelings towards Demi or Chris. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--I appreciate it. I think it would have been better in this instance had ChrisO documented the 3RR on

WP:AN/3RR instead. Demi ^T/_C

21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Demi. Yeah about that second revert on the Muhammad article, I was about to leave a message on the talk page when I was blocked otherwise I am sure that it wouldn't have gotten to a block. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the edits were clearly not permitted by the 3RR policy (see my comments at [12]); I reverted Zocky, not a.n.o.n.y.m; I haven't received a single e-mail from him; and there's a lengthy discussion of this incident User talk:ChrisO#3RR on my talk page, where a.n.o.n.y.m posted it in the first place.

I appreciate a.n.o.n.y.m's subsequent comment that there's no hard feelings, but I do think that admins need to follow the rules like everyone else, particularly where 3RR and self-unblocking are concerned. -- ChrisO 21:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with following the rules. Chris this is why I pointed out that you were in error by blocking me because you were involved in reverting me. Still no problem. Please check email again. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware, Anonym, that unblocking oneself can get one de-adminned? Don't do it. -Splash^talk 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes however as I mentioned above I didn't know I could. I tried it so I could talk to Chris and I though it had failed and that Chris had unblocked five minutes later. Read my message above. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to take the time to check...if this is still ongoing, Anonym, since you say above that you have no hard feelings and that you agree that Demi's original block was fair, and that you believe in abiding by the rules, please, just take your vacation. Count it as a blessing.  :-D Tomer^talk 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Demi's block was for 1 hour. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah going on vacation now...nah to much work to do :). Well atleast I learned a lot from this little incident. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Figured i'd let you know about this.

I got this message from Gobtude twice. Apparently he sent it to many others as well.

乱用がなかったり、またはユーザーの方の個人攻撃をしてはいけない。また、猥褻はここに許可されない。ありがとう。

which means according to Babelfish...

Abuse there will continue to be, or the user privately does not have to attack. In addition, it is not permitted obscenely here. Thank you.

And then after blocking(NPA/TP), I got this message from Hooting Pig and Hooting Drune. ここのポルノグラフィー無し。ポルノグラフィーのウェブサイトにリンクを誓わなかったり、または加えてはいけない。調停委員会は2 つの週の未決の調査のための禁止した.

Which means according to Babelfish...

There is no pornography here. In the web sight of the pornography link you do not swear, or do not have to add. Mediation committee prohibited for undecided investigation of two weeks.^[13]

Draw your own conclusions, I blocked Gobtude for 24 hours and the socks indefinately.

very strange... but my mozilla just shows Japanese characters as a bunch of question marks anyways--Alhutch 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Now using a variety of socks. One exhibited the characteristics of a broken proxy. I posted that username for a checkuser request to get the underlying proxy blocked. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the Kanji but the babel is much appreciated, since my knowledge of kanji is nil. Why on earth add Japanese notices to the en wikipedia though? This is not attempted censorship, it is nonsense given the circumstances. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They're equivalents of user warning messages. The first says something along the lines of, "Do not abuse or make personal attacks against other users. In addition, obscenity is not permitted. Thank you." The second is, "Pornography is not allowed here. Do not add or make links to pornographic web sites," and the last sentence doesn't make much sense to me. I don't know why people are getting these messages though.

chat

} 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 
[[User:BigDaddy777]] has returned to Wikipedia as [[User: Big Daddy 777]].

OK, ArbComm, what are you going to do??

<P>[[Image:BigDaddy2005.jpg|<font size =4  color="#00688B">'''Big Daddy '''</font>  |200px|center]]<br style="clear:both" />

 </center><P>




<font size =2  color="#00688B"><center><B><font size =4 color =" #A56B08">Big Daddy<P><p>
<i>Editor-at-Large</i>  <P></font><P><font size =2  color =black><br style="clear:both" /></i></center>

--[[User:Big Daddy 777|Big Daddy 777]] 10:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)