| Revision as of 12:27, 12 October 2005 editCurps (talk | contribs)52,628 edits rv← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:27, 12 October 2005 edit undoL9N6Yac7 (talk | contribs)1 editm rvNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| SUPER COOL. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}} | |||
| <!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. --> | |||
| == Decius == | |||
| ] (aka ]) by ] with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppetry and adding insulting and bad edit summaries). ] <small>]</small> 08:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Please see ] for further discussion. I don't know the details, but it appears he tried changing his username rather than sockpuppeting. Perhaps this block needs to be shortened. - ]|] 12:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I am looking at this myself and it is a name change (since I think it is currently disabled). Maybe the block should also be shortened/lifted and I also think we should at least have a board/page where name changes are announced. ] ] 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The problem ''appears'' to be that {{user|Decius}} would like to use the username 'Alexandru', but that the name was already taken. Since the original {{user|Alexandru}} only made a half-dozen edits to a single article back in January, Decius wants to take over the account...? Unfortunately, while Decius is signing his comments as 'Alexandru'–his signature links there–his edits are still under the name 'Decius'...which makes attribution and figuring out who's who a mess. | |||
| Decius has also decided to try and squat on the username 'Spider-Man'. Once again another user ({{user|Spider-Man}} had already claimed that name, making approximately twenty-five edits back in June. | |||
| Given Decius' habit of writing abusive edit summaries ('') and his inability to settle on a user name (or pick usernames that haven't already been taken) someone probably needs to take him aside and explain how things actually work around here. Until that happens, he should probably remain blocked. Nasty edit summaries and impersonation of other editors (deliberate or not) are not good things. ](]) 15:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :''sigh'' See also , where he attempts to claim ] has his own. (Alexandros is the old username of ].) He also has claimed the user pages of the currently non-existent | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| : he has more than 2600 edits to User space, so I might have missed a few. He's got more than seven ''thousand'' edits to each of article and article talk space; does anybody know if he's a useful contributor who doesn't use preview, or what? ](]) 16:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''I'm Anittas and I'm here to defend Decius'''. All accusations made towards Decius, except for the nasty comments one, are false. This is what ], the one who blocked Decius, accused him of: | |||
| * sockpuppeting; | |||
| * personal attacks; | |||
| * disruption; | |||
| * vandalism; and | |||
| * sockpuppeting, again | |||
| I argued against all accounts mentioned there, because: | |||
| * Decius did not sickpuppet anything. He did not use his two nicknames to vote against any case. He announced to the community that he changed his nickname, from Decius to Alexander, because he was tired of people thinking he had a relation to the ethnicity of Emperor Decius, ie., being Albanian; however, since most people knew him by his original pseudonym - that is, Decius - he kept the nickname; | |||
| * The only personal attacks that I know of, which Decius admitted of committing, was calling another moderator for a Wiki-Geek - and that was a long time ago; and insulting a bot in a sarcastic way. Since a bot is not a person, it cannot be taken as a personal attack; | |||
| * It depends how Wiki defines disruption, but yes, I agree that Decius was being annoying in his edits on his personal talk-page. He admitted that, too; | |||
| * I have not seen any proof of Decius vandalizing any page; | |||
| * Sockpuppeting: see the first argument. | |||
| I presented all of this to JTkiefer. He did not present any proof of his accusations towards Decius. Instead, he said this, on my talk-page: | |||
| ''"check the edit summaries here Those alone are enough to warrant a perm ban"'' | |||
| ] | |||
| I disagreed with Jtkiefer that such edits deserve a permanent ban and I kindly asked him to unban Decius. So far, no reply. Decius has been a contributor to Wiki with his 5000 edits, and growing. He has been offered an adminship, which he turned down. JTkiefer, on the other hand, nominated himself to the 2005 Arbitration Committee elections. From what I know, JTkiefer didn't warn Decius, nor did he try to talk to him. I would like Decius to be unbanned; if this doesn't happen, I would like to know what steps I need to take in order to appeal against this decission. | |||
| Related links: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| --] 16:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| guys, Decius/Alexandru is a valuable contributor. He can be disruptive/abusive and of course should be duly blocked when he is, ''after fair warning''. Jtkiefer has no call to play arbcom and issue permanent bans on contributors. He should warn, then block briefly, then block for periods ''up to one month'', at most. Anything else is up to the arbcom. Therefore I expect Jtkiefer or any other admin to reset Decius' block to something within the letter of policy. If Jtkiefer alleges that Decius is "sockpuppeteering" he hasn't even looked into the case, Decius has never tried to hide his identity when using the Alexandru account. regards, ] <small>]</small> 17:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Above remark posted by {{User|213.3.75.178}}. I've left a note on Dbachmann's talk page asking him to clarify if he's back from wikivacation now. --](]) 18:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::alright, since I'm here I can also log in briefly; it doesn't matter who above comment is coming from though, mind you, it is just a call to adhere to policy. ] <small>]</small> 18:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks. I just didn't want to see someone impersonating you while you were on vacation. ](]) 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem as I see it is not one of sockpuppeteering—I don't really see evidence to suggest that, though I haven't delved too deeply. The problem is that Decius has adopted the username of another–actually two other–Wikipedians. Though the confusion is probably not deliberate, Decius' is effectively impersonating another editor and assuming their identity. What if the real Alexandru comes back? If Decius wants to change his username to something that ''isn't'' already claimed by another editor, then there's no difficulty. ](]) 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::sure, talk to him, warn him, rfc his ass, block him for a day or two over his tasteless summaries, but I am objecting to Jtkeifer's ''permaban'' here. 19:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I have a few questions about nicknames on Wiki: | |||
| 1. How can someone claim a nickname which is already in use? No one can claim the nickname "Anittas", so long I keep it. Correct? If I abandon my nickname, then anyone can claim it. So, if the user who first had the nickname of "Alexander" abandoned his nickname, anyone can claim it. Am I wrong? | |||
| 2. If someone changes their nickname, say, from X to Y; will the nickname in their contribution list also change? For example, in the article about apples, user:(whatever) made three contributions; then that same user changes his nickname to 'Y'. Do his contributions in the article about 'apples' show his new nickname, instead? Thanks. --] 19:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :There's two aspects here. You can ''sign your name'' however you want - say <nowiki>]</nowiki> - whilst keeping your current username. Or you can change your ''username'', and sign as <nowiki>]</nowiki>. In the first case you'll show up in history logs as Anittas, in the second as Alexander. The problem here seems to be that Decius decided he wanted to change his username, but didn't do it properly - so he was signing himself as User:Alexandru on talkpages, and linking to Alexandru's page, but in the history he was still Decius. | |||
| :As for actually changing usernames, yes, you can do this - but for (legal) reasons, you can't change to a username that's already registered, so whatever happened he couldn't be User:Alexandru. Does that make sense? ] | ] | 22:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is where you request changes. The feature is currently disabled and it is not possible to be renamed to an account that already exists. ]] 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I think I know what he did. I think he went to that userpage and perhaps put a redirection to his own user-page. Well, maybe that's not allowed, but say, I create a user-page with a name user:ApplesAreCool and redirect it to my own userpage. Would that be allowed? --] 04:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :that's not the point. you cannot do that if the account you are interested in is already taken. Even if the owner is no longer active: he is still the owner of the edits, tied to his account name. You cannot claim accounts that are no longer in use (arguably, you could if the account in question doesn't have any edits, but not if there are serious contributions). But Decius was blocked for offensiveness, not for this Username business. What is going on? He still appears to be banned. Do all admins agree that a long-time contributor with thousands of edits may be banned permanently without intervention of the arbcom, over abusive edit summaries?? How is this defensible as within policy? 10:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :alright, since I have looked into this now, and feel slightly annoyed by the lack of justification or feedback, I have taken action now: | |||
| :*I agree with the block, Alexandru should have been warned, but even without warning, a block of a day or so would have been defensible regarding the nature of his edit summaries. | |||
| :*Jtkiefer blocked him on 9 October, 2:16. This means that he has served for more than two days now. | |||
| :*I do not allege Jtkiefer has acted in bad faith. But he has exhibited triggerhappiness coupled with a reluctance to defend his action that make me feel uncomfortable with regard to his arbcom bid | |||
| :*<s>I have unblocked ], but not ], which Alexandru/Decius stated he doesn't care to use anymore anyway</s> realizing that he doesn't even have the password for User:Alexandru, I have unblocked User:Decius now, too (doh, why was User:Alexandru blocked in the first place?) | |||
| :I am back to my wikivacation (I'll be back around Nov 12th), and thus will not be able to argue any more about this. Any admin is of course free to revert my action, but I would expect a clear justification, with reference to policy, in this case. As a final note, I do not consider this unblocking clique-ish: Yes, I have worked with Decius, and this may be the reason I cared enough to get involved; but I do think my action is fully in line with policy. regards & take care, ] <small>]</small> 13:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::First of all nobody can claim that he is still blocked due to ''09:48, October 11, 2005 Dbachmann unblocked User:Alexandru (see WP:AN/I)''. it appears somebody who didn't feel that I acted quickly enough has unblocked him even though I only informed of any discussion of this at 7:09 (utc) this morning (2:09 est, my local time) so I feel that reversing my block without giving me adequete time to discuss this and possibly unblock him myself is extremely hasty and in bad form. Regarding the block, I agree now that I should not have instantly perm blocked him like that, the more appropriate step I could have done would be to have given a 24 or 48 hour block and request that he could explain himself regarding the edit summaries and the apparent impersonation of other users, not to mention the fact that he had multiple accounts which in itself isn't a reason to block however in this case would be the case be due to suspicious behavior on Decius's part. Now that he is unblocked I think that he should choose an account, preferably Alexandru since that appears to be his existing account and only sign with that name and that name alone to prevent confusion. <small>] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> </small> ----- 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Romath again== | |||
| "Romath" (]) in is now posting legal threats to the help desk in an attempt to have us delete any pages that mention her name -- A name publiczied on her own blog, IIRC. ] ] 15:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Also posted legal threats to ] after you linked it from the help desk. Kind of like iron. --] ] 15:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wik's sockpuppets== | |||
| ; Neolithic (wik) | |||
| ] referred me to here ... just wanted to state that ] appears to be ] ... he's been reverting articles to a non-NPOV verions. Sincerely, ] 17:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :And you two don't have any history or anything... It's always ] as I'm sure you know. ]] 22:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Name created for disruption== | |||
| A spammer and vandal who used to just use the anon IP account {{User:131.247.118.130}} ] called me "NightmareGuy" and threatened "obnoxious vandalism" -- Now there's a new user, {{User:NightmareGuy}} ], whose sole edits have been vandalism and harassment directly aimed at me. And see here where he admits to being the same editor as earlier. . I would suggest the the accont be permanently banned as the name itself was created solely for disruptive purposes and the only edits this person have made have been vandalism. ] 19:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *They were warned and it seems they have stopped. As a side note they invited another user to vandalize Dreamguy's page . <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 20:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :{{User|DreamBoy}} was then created, which also went around undoing DreamGuy's work, so I blocked the account indefinitely. My first thought was Gabrielsimon, but he's too literate for Gabe. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :{{vandal|DreamMan}} was created today, his first edit to taunt DreamGuy and assure him a steady stream of harassment. I fear this will continue until the IP(s) behind the sockpuppets are identified. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 18:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==] II== | |||
| Copied from ] | |||
| How do we handle cases like {{user|Jguk}}? This person appears to me to be carefully timing his reverts to ] so as to repeatedly make his change against consensus while refusing to discuss on the talk page. I was ready to block him with a warning before I realized he technically had not violated the 3RR, so I wasn't sure I had the right to deal with him in that way. | |||
| I've reverted him, and I'm going to warn him that repeatedly reverting an article against such a clear consensus while refusing to discuss the edit on the article's talk page is vandalism and that if he continues he will find himself in dispute resolution and his ability to edit restricted. Any other comments? Should I just block him anyway, maybe a shorter block, as a warning? ] ] 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| And then he archived his talk page immediately after my warning. ] ] 20:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :wait as see if the patturn continues. If it does block him. Gameing the rule is unhelpful.] 20:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm assuming good faith and have placed my warning on his new, blank talk page. If he reverts again today I'll block using 3RR. If I see him revert again after 24 hours, I may give a warning block (assuming noone here hollers and tells me that's not appropriate), or I may try to bring it to attention through dispute resolution so we could have an ironclad case for action if he doesn't concede. ] ] 20:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, and if he finds some excuse to take the warning off of his talk page, I'll act on that, too. Probably revert him back until he's at risk of 3RR on that. ] ] 20:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a small number of disruptive editors going round trying to change date styles from BC to BCE in contravention of WP policy - I have been reverting them. It appears here that I erred and that the page (unfortunately for most of our readers who find BCE alien to them!) apparently was not originally BC. That's a shame - we should always use common terms over unusual ones, but I shan't revert this page again. Incidentally, where I know I have made at least one revert of any page, I always check to see whether a further revert would make me in breach of the 3RR (which seems a sensible approach). I'm not into gaming - I'm into making WP as useful a resource to as many people as possible, it's just a shame that a small number of users aren't, ] 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <del>Resolved, then, mostly. Thanks for your good faith, here</del>. I do think you (and all of us) need to realize that the present status quo on BC/BCE/AD/CE is pretty shaky. You can't go wrong if you treat it on an article by article basis and let the regular editors of that article come to consensus. | |||
| I don't think you're trying to game the 3RR system, but I do think you should think a little more about the spirit behind the policy. From experience, I get changes made more effectively when I'm discussing more and reverting less. I'll leave further comments about it on your talk page. ] ] 20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay, he's repeatedly removed my comments from his page. By my count he has done this four times: once through immediately archiving (now the timing is more suspicious), once for when I replaced my original comment on the new talk page, once for my next comment about the spirit behind the 3RR, and then once more after I replaced both removed comments. Is this a violation of 3RR? ] ] 21:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Meanwhile, check his edit history and note that he is still carrying the fight about era notation to other pages. Again I contend that this violates the spirit of 3RR when you are effectively carrying on the same revert on multiple pages. I rescind my above comment that this is resolved. ] ] 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| He has removed my comments again. I consider this to be the fifth revert and a violation of 3RR and am blocking 24 hours. If anyone disagrees, feel free to unblock or otherwise admonish me. I think I'm doing right here ... but as a newbie admin I would like some feedback. | |||
| My understanding is that regardless of whatever control and latitude may be granted to you to control your user talk pages (which does not, according to any policy I can see, appear to be much) you don't get a free pass there from 3RR. ] ] 21:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{vandal|Jguk}} | |||
| Of course, he's continuing to remove the comments from his talk page. I'll protect the page if it persists. | |||
| Question: I'm not in violation of 3RR for replacing my warnings more than three times, am I? ] ] 21:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, ] says I am in the wrong here. ] ] 21:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm bewildered by Jguk's attitude to this. ''He'' is the editor who's being disruptive by going around changing pages that have been stable around this issue for months, so far as I know. There ''is'' no policy on this. The MoS says both are acceptable and anyway the MoS isn't policy, but Jguk is going around implying that using BCE/CE is somehow forbidden. For example, a recent edit summary of his read: "I'm told the MOS mandates this copyedit," which strikes me as less than honest, because the MoS, as Jguk knows very well, mandates nothing about anything. I really wish he would stop it because all it's doing is creating bad feeling. On top of that, he's archiving all the comments about it on his talk page, so people don't see that quite a few editors oppose him. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm copying this to ], which is where it should go, I believe. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Slim, the ] and ] pages have almost always used BC notation until ] chose to change it. It is this change, and is adamant refusal to accept that it is against the WP guidelines, coupled with some personal attacks he has levied, that has created the problems in this page. Apparently I erred on the ] page, but not on the other pages, where I have been supportive of the WP "no change" approach. I continue to invite all other editors, including yourself, to support that compromise, ] 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You can't hammer someone into making your comment stay on their talk page. 3RR is not in fact generally held to apply in this situation. If you put it there and he removed it, he saw it. It's not like the diff has vanished. This has been well established in many cases where annoying trolls were bugging people on their talk pages then tried to nail them with 3RR when they removed them. If he doesn't want to keep your comment there, that's up to him, not you, and you don't get to edit-war otherwise - ] 22:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hm? This looks like a clear case of 3RR gaming in the article namespace. Add to that deleting warnings off his talk page and breaking the 3RR doing so. Kelly Martin said that 3RR doesn't apply to userspace, but that is wrong, it is just not generally enforced there. Here we have enough disruption in the article and talk namespaces, and clear block evasion using an IP and personal attacks in the edit summary when removing comments that I'd say a longer block would have been better. I would reblock, but I don't think that should be done without further agreement. (Although apparently Kelly Martin seems to think it was OK to unblock without any discussion. Don't we make people admins because we ''trust'' them?) ]·] 22:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::You gotta be joking. He had a 3RR warning put on his talk page, then he removed it. So he was warned and can't deny he was warned. Then what is the point of repeatedly replacing the warning except harassment? That's ''precisely'' why 3RR isn't generally applied to a user in their own userspace - people harassing others with repeatedly replacing removed additions, then trying to nail them on 3RR - ] 23:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure if you were responding to me (because I guess my comment wasn't really a response to you but in general). But my point is that, talk page shenanigans notwithstanding, 3RR gaming in the articles, block evasion, and personal attacks are enough for me to add up to a block, and so I am especially worried about the quick unblock without discussion. ]·] 02:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry, yeah, I meant the talk page thing in particular. User space ''if being used for a project purpose'' (a nebulous concept) seems to be seen as "one's own" - ] 08:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just one more thing: 3RR-blocking is not supposed to be a punishment, its aim is to stop edit wars. If someone is blocked, he can still edit his own talk page (IIRC), so a 3RR block would accomplish nothing here. (I'm only talking about the talk page thing as well.) ] 11:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| An from an IP address which claims to be jguk looks a bit inappropriate. ] ] 22:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I was angry, I apologise for that - though if you'd suffered the abuse I have from ] and ] and then a non-editing admin weighed in, ignorant of what he was getting into and misapplied WP guidelines, maybe you'd be angry too. Anyway, we all get hot under the collar sometimes, I know we shouldn't, and I accept that comment could have been better phrased, ] 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Heh. Apparently I have become the new ] against whose evil machinations the valiant ] defends wikipedia from. | |||
| And back on planet earth.... ] has made over '''300''' date style changes to articles since his arbcom case as detailed ]. This in addition to the over '''1000''' date style changes he made before his arbcom case, as detailed ]. He is currently on his '''12th''' revert on ], after changing date styles. | |||
| *'''14+''' reverts on ] | |||
| *'''14+''' reverts on ] | |||
| *'''12''' reverts on ] | |||
| *'''7''' reverts on ] | |||
| and the list goes on and on and on and on. ] 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You left an important incident off your list; while his Arbitration case was on-going, during a period when he claimed to have "left" Misplaced Pages, in about 3 hours jguk astoundingly made over . While, as usual, he claimed to be merely conforming to the MOS, he actually removed CE from some pages while leaving AD in, and in other cases simply replaced CE with AD, e.g. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 15:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes. And in case anybody is wondering about Jguk's ip.... he is using 195.40.200.xxx, as evidenced . Some other edits he's done as an "anon ip" include: , which should all prove that this range is used by Jguk. ] 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Six reverts at ] between October 8 and 10 against six editors. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: I can't explain Jguk's "apologies" when the same misconduct goes on and on. Often, his era-chaging edits are accompanied by misleading summaries, e.g. "as noted before, WP:MOS apparently mandates this change" . Since this has been repeatedly pointed out to him, I only conclude that he continues this intentionally. What needs to be done to take this matter further than just venting in a section ''Jguk N''? ]←]] 10:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm firmly in the AD camp, but I'm finding ]'s actions to be borderline trolling. He appears on stable articles, which he's never edited, and makes provocative changes. --] ] 10:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| All the articles Sortan refers to were stable in using BC notation until one editor changed it. I have stated quite clearly that I am not changing date styles, just reverting those who are. Compare Sortan's own edit history, which shows that it is a role account, probably created by a prolific WPian, that has just been used to troll the issue throughout. I have acknowledged that I got the wrong end of the stick on Jerusalem, but that is an exception. Will all editors accept the "no change of style" position, as I have, or not? I'd be interested in there replies, ] 11:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: From ]: | |||
| <blockquote style="background-color: #f0f0f0;"> | |||
| ::3.1.2 Style guide | |||
| ::1) Misplaced Pages has established a ] for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see . The prescriptions of Misplaced Pages's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." . ''Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)'' | |||
| ::3.1.3 Optional styles | |||
| ::2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. ''Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)'' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ::In his urge to impose the BC/AD notation, Jguk deliberately misconstrues the ArbCom decision by picking only the parts he likes, ignoring the requirement to be "consistent within an article" and "unless there is some substantial reason for the change". I don't have anything against British spelling or BC/AD notation ''in general'', but just as '''"it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject"''', in some cases it is inappropriate to use Christian-centric notation having a viable neutral alternative. ]←]] 22:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| We have already had long discussions on this. Please see ] where a number of proposals were defeated. I'm 100% sure that the ArbCom did not intend to overrule community decisions. You are arguing that something is a "substantial reason for a change" despite the community explicitly ''rejecting'' the proposal. Your attention has been drawn to this before as well. "Substantial change" is not an invitation to a free-for-all where debates can recommence on any article a particular editor wants. It must refer to changes that have clearcut community-wide consensus. At present, the community has adopted no consensus on the matter, which means at present no "substantial reasons" have been established, ] 22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Jguk, please reread ] & ] (also quoted above). Please don't imply that "substantial reasons" don't exist (an example was given by the ArbCom) and please don't try to hide behind "the community" whose policies you push aside so often. ]←]] 03:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==New Request for Comment -- Abuse of Administrator Powers== | |||
| I have written up a ''minor'' complaint about ] Please review it and sign on and express views if you like. Thank you, Obrigado.] 01:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : For what it's worth, this isn't really the place to put it (unless I'm grossly mistaken). <font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <font color="blue">]</font> 05:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Crankshuick sockpuppets bot== | |||
| The Crankshuick collection of sockpuppets is evading 3RR at ] and ] and ]. Activity resumed ''one minute'' after Tony Sidaway removed protection . There seems little doubt that this is a bot lying in wait for the page to be unprotected. When blocked, a new sockpuppet is created. | |||
| I think we need the IP in question to be traced, or open proxies blocked. -- ] 02:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there a list of Wikbots? The Wik MO of late has been open proxies. He makes a good open proxy canary ;-) The catch being that CheckUser is slooooooooooooow and frequently fails with a timeout (the software kills any database query that takes too long). But a list could be useful, because that might point us to the proxy list he's using - ] 08:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Guy Montag == | |||
| User on probation and banned from editing Israel related topics. Been editing ]. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zionist_terrorism&diff=25247905&oldid=25186664 | |||
| Needs a further warning? | |||
| ] 07:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages and autism == | |||
| A thoughtful post to WikiEN-l by Tony Sidaway. For the attention of RC/newpages patrollers in particular, but the general issue is wider than that - ] 08:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Most reverted admin award == | |||
| {{user|Most reverted admin award}} - wtf is going on here? ]|] 12:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps a poor choice of name by whoever created it. It appears to be working out the admin with the most vandalized user page. --] ] 12:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Do you think so? What about just MRAA, then let everyone free to choose what MRAA means? ] 15:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have trouble figuring out how the points are calculated. It is some number multiplied with the number of reverts, divided by the days of having been an admin, but where does the original number come from? ] | ] 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Each revert gives you 289 points. 289 number is not selected by chance, it is the days of the oldest administrator (]), according to the +sysop burocrat log . Then the result is divided by the number of days you are admin. ] 15:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, if you count the old Bureaucrat log, the oldest admin seems to be ], who was sysopped on February 16, 2004. There have been admins even before that, but I don't know if their sysopping dates are logged anywhere. ] | ] 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] was just sysopped as a test of the new bureaucrat functions. You could check the history of ] for admins back to June 2003, but the ones before that were only recorded on the mailing list (wikien-l since that existed, and wikipedia-l before that). ]] 18:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Thank you for the advices. The ] is ready, and we have now new MRAA results! Angela, I am afraid you lost your silver medal :P ] 06:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages is Communism sock == | |||
| {{vandal|Википедия будет коммунизм}} vandalized ] earlier, and I tried to block, but the block log indicates I instead blocked {{vandal|Википедия будет комму}}. {{vandal|Википедия будет коммунизм}} has yet to do anything else, so the block may have worked, but since there appears to be a problem blocking this username (or displaying it in the block log), I thought I'd give everyone a heads-up here. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Weird. If I look at the block log I find an indefinite on the first guy - - but not on the second - . Has the latter been fixed? ] | ] | 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Hmm, I think this just may be a Unicode problem in either Wikimedia or my browser. The Cyrillic characters are screwing up the {{tl|vandal}} templates I used above, as well. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 16:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***I've seen the templates thing before - I think it's actually the spaces not the fancy character screwing it up, ie {{vandal|foo bar}}. ] | ] | 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| This is a known bug that has nothing to do with Cyrillic. Use underscores instead of spaces: | |||
| {{vandal|Википедия_будет_коммунизм}} -- ] 22:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *That doesn't explain the weird behavior of the block log... or does it? <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 00:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hmm. Curps is right about the underscore business, I just found this out myself recently with the {{tl|user}} series. Reproducing for clarity: | |||
| # {{vandal|Википедия_будет_коммунизм}} | |||
| # {{vandal|Википедия_будет_комму}} | |||
| The first account has been blocked indefinitely three times, according to the blocklog. | |||
| * 18:49, 2005 October 11 MarkSweep blocked "User:Википедия будет коммунизм" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet) | |||
| * 15:12, 2005 October 11 Android79 blocked "User:Википедия будет коммунизм" with an expiry time of indefinite (Misplaced Pages is Communism sockpuppet) | |||
| * 15:10, 2005 October 11 Android79 blocked "User:Википедия будет коммунизм" with an expiry time of indefinite (Misplaced Pages is Communism sockpuppet) | |||
| The second account has not been blocked. Don't know why the block log seems to show the opposite for you, Android. ]]<i> 07:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</i> | |||
| ==Sock/bot attack== | |||
| ] is being hit by multiple ligged in socks - can the IP be detected and blocked? Quickly? --] ] 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Now also hitting ] --] ] 16:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Anybody? This is really getting ridiculous. It's clearly a bot. · ]<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| do not! block these bot-generated accounts! this will only slow down the database. instead ask a developer for the originating IP and block that. 16:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Nobody on IRC seems in the least concerned, and Phroziac has unprotected VIP. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Maybe we need ] or a similar page, because it isn't easy to get in touch with them. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 17:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::He's moved on to ]. · ]<sup>]</sup> 17:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::no, we need admins who can see IPs. I have been saying this for a long time, and I think it is stupid to expect us to fight vandals without that capability. If not all admins are trusted with seeing IPs we need '''at least''' a substantial fraction of 'uber-admins' who can. Since we already have the rank, why not bureaucrats. This is an urgent requirement in my book; at least bureaucrats should be allowed to see IPs, and the population of bureaucrats should then be increased so that it is likely at least one is online at all times. Otherwise we are just shooting our own foot with a misguided notion of 'privacy'. (so, is this the onslaught prophesized by ]?) ] <small>]</small> 18:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is definitely necessary, as Misplaced Pages attracts more technically-savvy vandals. Could an "IP check log" be created so that usage of this ability is transparent? I'd feel comfortable trusting all bureaucrats (and possibly all admins) with this ability if anyone could see who was checking up on who. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 18:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree, I'd love to see more editors with ], and a version of ] that doesn't hurt the database server quite as badly. Who wants to write a proposal? --]] 20:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure. The point of hiding IPs is privacy, and the fact that we don't want people to (potentially) get in trouble for their actions on Misplaced Pages; and as admins are selected on the basis of on-Wiki trustworthiness, not real-world trustworthiness, they shouldn't be given powers with potential consequences off Misplaced Pages just by virtue of their adminship. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 20:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::If checkuser is made available to more admins (say, admins with a proven 2 year record of being responsible people, bureaucrats may decide), every lookup should be logged somewhere accessible for all the other admins (that a lookup of the username was made, not the result of it, of course). If a look-up log is open like this, it will help avoid suspicions of abuse and should keep everybody honest. ] 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this is implemented, there should also be limits on the number of people one admin can use it on over a period of time. However, you run again into the issue of how to determine responsibility - some real-world verification of identity and evidence of trustworthiness should be provided, not just a record of good Misplaced Pages behavior. We hide IPs for a reason. Logging can't reverse an abuse that's already occured. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 22:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Guy Montag== | |||
| {{User|Guy Montag}} has been banned from editing articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; however, he has continued editing. He may be briefly blocked and the three month ban may also be extended, see ] ] 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Decius again== | |||
| A little while ago, {{vandal|Decius}} moved the user page of {{user|Alexandru}} to ] and replaced the redirect page with a speedy delete tag. This was discussed above in the ] section of this page. I have blocked him for 3 hours while investigating. -- ] 00:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, you better have a look at ] now too, . If there's agreement that Alexander 007 is Decius (and I believe he is), then he should be blocked as well. ] 06:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unlike the previous cases, Alexander 007 is his own newly created account and not someone else's. So there isn't a problem here. I suggested he contact a bureaucrat to rename his account, but he preferred to do it this way (or maybe the rename feature is temporarily not working). -- ] 11:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *The account {{vandal|Alexander_007}} has that Decius's Talk page be speedily deleted. ]]<i> 07:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC) NB.</i> The {{tl|vandal}} template seems to have a carriage return that's messing up posts using it. I recall from the {{tl|user}} talk page that this was once a suspected problem with that template too. Can this be fixed? ]]<i> 07:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</i> | |||
| *:::Yes, I fixed the template just now. -- ] 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *:I suppose we frown on talk page deletions, but since Decius == Alexander 007 this is his own request and not vandalism by some other user. Should it be deleted? -- ] 11:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for fixing {{tl|vandal}}. As to the Talk page, I'd defer to your wide experience, Curps, but if Decius has had a problematic past—and the posts up above suggest multiple suspected impersonations, possible socking, and some seriously abusive editing—I'm not sure I'd want to remove part of that record. As I understand it, the CSD provision ''allows'' User Talk pg deletion on request, but does not ''compel'' us to do it. There is also the additional issue that we have had no real confirmation, as far as I'm aware, of their unity—Alexander 007 has claimed to be Decius, and asked us to delete Decius' page, but AFAIK ''Decius'' hasn't posted anything confirming it. In cases like this it's probably best that two-way confirmation is safely in hand before any move is made to delete pages, etc. Kind regards ]]<i> 11:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</i> | |||
| *::''NB.'' Just went through User talk:Decius. It's almost certainly him all right, although he should have done the re-direct while signed in as Decius, and written a clear note on Alexander 007's talk page saying he=Decius (while signed in as Alex007). So it's up to the admins, I guess. My preference is that ] remain as it is: a redirect, but with the history available for inspection should the need arise. ]]<i> 11:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</i> | |||
| sigh: ] is an unrelated user that made a few edits and left. ] would have liked the username, and used the account's talkpage, that's all. Now following the events described further up on this page, Decius decided to settle for the new account ] and wants the Decius account gone. This has nothing to do with sockpuppetry, it's a username change. Of course User_talk:Decius shouldn't be deleted, because its history contains edits by many people, but if the user so wishes, it could be blank-protected, I suppose. I think there can be no reasonable doubt that Alexander 007 is the same person as Decius, so I think it will be safe to go ahead and blank-protect Decius' userpages (you can still undo that should the 'real' Decius turn up, but I assure you they're the same). So, among the condemning summary "multiple suspected impersonations, possible socking, and some seriously abusive editing" the only thing that really applies is "abusive editing", but that also only in edit summaries, where it appears the user likes to vent when drunk. Bottom line, this is a very good user, but he can safely be blocked for a few hours when he is spotted doing empty edits with abusive summaries, because that probably means he is drunk, or just in a gloomy mood. That still makes him a much less problematic user than lots of edit-warriors I could mention. 12:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| sigh: ] is an unrelated user that made a few edits and left. ] would have liked the username, and used the account's talkpage, that's all. Now following the events described further up on this page, Decius decided to settle for the new account ] and wants the Decius account gone. This has nothing to do with sockpuppetry, it's a username change. Of course User_talk:Decius shouldn't be deleted, because its history contains edits by many people, but if the user so wishes, it could be blank-protected, I suppose. I think there can be no reasonable doubt that Alexander 007 is the same person as Decius, so I think it will be safe to go ahead and blank-protect Decius' userpages (you can still undo that should the 'real' Decius turn up, but I assure you they're the same). So, of the condemning summary "multiple suspected impersonations, possible socking, and some seriously abusive editing" the only thing that really applies is "abusive editing", but that also only in edit summaries, where it appears the user likes to vent when drunk. Bottom line, this is a very good user, but he can safely be blocked for a few hours when he is spotted doing empty edits with abusive summaries, because that probably means he is drunk, or just in a gloomy mood. That still makes him a much less problematic user than lots of edit-warriors I could mention. 12:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{vandal|10.0.0.8}} committed vandalism yesterday. I've now blocked indefinitely, but surely this is a registered username spoofing an IP address and not an actual IP address???? Will the block apply to the username or to the IP address (the latter would seem ineffective). -- ] 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *10.0.0.8 is within "private" IP space and could not be a legitimate anonymous user's IP. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 02:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *See ]. Apparently it's a technical glitch. I'd suggest leaving the account blocked, as no one ''should'' be editing from that IP. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 02:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **As I mentioned on ], Tim Starling said on IRC that this was caused by a technical issue (something about new load balancing servers). The edits were coming from multiple users, including people who apparently thought they were logged in. I would say unblock the IP or ask a developer. It wasn't caused by spoofing or any malicious activity. I am worried that the block could cause problems with the new load balancing thingy. ] 03:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| According to the contribution history, there were only contributions from 15:55 to 16:32 on October 11. So hopefully whatever glitch it was is fixed. | |||
| There were also contributions from {{user|10.0.0.11}} yesterday in the same time frame, and back in July from {{user|10.0.0.3}}, and in January from {{user|10.0.0.13}}. I didn't check beyond 10.0.0.15. -- ] 03:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Tim told me on irc, that blocking 10.0.0.0/8 should have no effect on the wiki. He did suggest that any block on this range should include a friendly block message. The problem was related to configuration changes to the load balancing software. --] ] 12:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| There was a really ugly edit war between anonips at ] (over 200 edits) today. I couldn't decided which version was the good one, so I reverted to the last version before today (from a week ago) and protected it. This may be related: where yesterday is written: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Oh come on now... | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Scott_Keith | |||
| I finally get a Misplaced Pages entry and it's from some doofus with a grudge who complains about errors and then gets pretty much everything about me wrong? I'd fix it myself but that might be considered a bad thing to do. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ==]== | |||
| The above user appears to be a WOW sockpuppet and is making duplicate article in the form "''article''_on_Wheels" and creating redirects from the real articles. See ]. Can some kindly admin please investigate. Thanks --] ] 11:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I see ] has now blocked him, but there is a bit of cleaning up to do. --] ] 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:27, 12 October 2005
SUPER COOL.