Misplaced Pages

:Account suspensions: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:42, 1 July 2005 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,195 edits →Page locks: R & I unlocked← Previous edit Revision as of 06:54, 3 July 2005 edit undoNectarflowed (talk | contribs)5,007 edits →[] aka DAD and []: witness commentNext edit →
Line 33: Line 33:


:Also note, ] supports the same unscientific POV presentation of ] as ] and ]. ]] 30 June 2005 20:30 (UTC) :Also note, ] supports the same unscientific POV presentation of ] as ] and ]. ]] 30 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)

As a witness to this, I'd like to put in my concern that saying a user has crossed the line and is not being a level-headed editor is not the same as disrupting an article for 2 and 1/2 weeks and continually repeating accusations of Nazism. It's a nice idea to apply a censure evenly across two opposing sides, but one of the sides has been acting in good faith, and the other has, yes, been acting in bad faith, as evidenced, for example, by his making 5 reversions in one day, even after being warned. Note that said editor still hasn't apologized, although Drummond did immediately. Drummond should have been applauded for having the patience to deal with said editor for so long--] ] 3 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)


===Current=== ===Current===

Revision as of 06:54, 3 July 2005

Status:     unlocked

Shortcut
  • ]

This policy enforcement log serves as an open (public visible) place where admins can record actions relating to policy enforcement, without having to resort to e-mail, instant messaging, and other closed (private) channels.

It has not yet been decided whether or how this page should be made "admins only", but ALL AGREE that the talk page must remain unlocked.

Discuss this page here:

Page locks

Current

none

Previous

Account suspensions

Proposed

Drummond aka DAD and Zen-master

  • 2 hour block each to Drummond (contribs) and Zen-master (contribs), for repeated personal remarks directed against each other at talk:race and intelligence which disrupt discussion of improvements to the article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 20:15 (UTC)
    • Drummond: "your conduct has just crossed the line", "more level-headed contributors"
    • Zen-master: "I hope you enjoy your jail cell"
How is that a personal attack? The use of language propaganda (lying) is a crime in many places, if someone can explain it I will withdraw my prediction. zen master T 30 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)
I'd like to point out Ed Poor is by no means neutral nor can be considered a mediator on this issue. The issue is under discussion on the talk page by numerous people. Where are the citations for the claim of personal attacks? zen master T 30 June 2005 20:22 (UTC)
Also note, User:Arbor supports the same unscientific POV presentation of Race and intelligence as User:Ed Poor and User:Drummond. zen master T 30 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)

As a witness to this, I'd like to put in my concern that saying a user has crossed the line and is not being a level-headed editor is not the same as disrupting an article for 2 and 1/2 weeks and continually repeating accusations of Nazism. It's a nice idea to apply a censure evenly across two opposing sides, but one of the sides has been acting in good faith, and the other has, yes, been acting in bad faith, as evidenced, for example, by his making 5 reversions in one day, even after being warned. Note that said editor still hasn't apologized, although Drummond did immediately. Drummond should have been applauded for having the patience to deal with said editor for so long--Nectarflowed 3 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)

Current

CJ2005B

  • Added external fanfic link to Dalek and Doctor Who. Links were removed by both User:Squeakbox and myself, as non-notable (and empty) MSN group. He took umbrage originally here.
  • Replied, trying to explain the edits here, here and here.
  • His response was to vandalise my user page here, here, here, and here.
  • Warned him here and here.
  • Blocked him at 07:39, Jun 26, 2005 with an expiry of 24 hours.
  • Reason I'm listing it here is to get feedback if my actions were appropriate, given that I was in a midst of a content dispute with the user. --khaosworks 23:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, no one can fault you for the open-ness and transparency of this report. And promoting a website is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages; external links are for providing more info *to* the reader. But technically it would have been better to get another admin to intervene - just to avoid the appearance of bullying. In other words, you were right, but next time ask for help. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I thought that might have been too hasty, that's why I posted it here just to get a feel for what people thought. I'll report it on the incidents page when the block expires and he comes running back and wiping out my user page, as I expect him to (he sent me an abusive e-mail, too the little dickens). Thanks! --khaosworks 03:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Is this a log or a discussion forum?!? Why are you duplicating WP:AN/I! - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 04:59 (UTC)
  • Well, he's back, and vandalizing user pages. I have blocked him for 1 week. Since this is my longest temporary block so far, I would like for someone more experienced to check. --cesarb 00:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A week should give them a hint.Geni 00:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ElKabong

ElKabong "reverting vandalism" (untrue) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • 17:08, Jun 24, 2005 Fuzheado blocked "User:ElKabong" with an expiry time of infinite (Sockpuppet)
  • 17:07, Jun 24, 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:ElKabong" with an expiry time of 2 hours (profanity, false report of vandalism)
    See after-action review

212.251.12.68 RFA

  • Tried to talk to him
  • Tried to reduce block time
  • Contacted blocking admin -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bluxo

Bluxo Blocked indef by CryptoDerk as vandal after two edits.

  • Looked like newbie experiment to me, so I unblocked and left a nice note. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • This person is the pelican shit vandal. Please don't remove bans that you think may be wrong without asking about it first. Administrators are appointed because people have faith in their abilities — for another one to come along and remove a ban without at least inquiring about it first is a remarkable lack of good faith. Additionally, the image he inserted and uploaded is a known image he uses for pelican shit vandalism, and has been deleted before as such. CryptoDerk 21:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I also blocked Bluxo32 - possibly the same person. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Previous

152.163.101.13

User:152.163.101.13 - I blocked for 15 minutes for a spate of vandalism (6 times in 8 minutes) on User:SqueakBox's talk page. Just trying to slow him/her down a little. Guettarda 00:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

69.233.169.62

Expired: 69.233.169.62 - blocked 8 hours for scary rhetoric: "The terrorist is back"

  • 19:36, Jun 23, 2005, Ed Poor blocked 69.233.169.62 (expires 03:36, Jun 24, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (scary comments - see WP:PE)
  • Several other IP's on same page & my talk page - not worth writing about. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

TaiwanBot

TaiwanBot - unregistered bot, making errors

  • blocked for 2 hours, that ought to give us enough time to figure out what's going on. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • 20:25, Jun 23, 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:TaiwanBot" with an expiry time of 2 hours (unregistered bot)

CltFn

CltFn (three hours; expires 04:06, Jun 23, 2005) - unwillingness to follow our policies; justifying biased writing by accusing an admin of biased writing: "Have I inserted edits that are influenced by my POV ,perhaps , haven't you?? " .

See after-action review after-action review

Reports

If you see a policy violation, and you can't resolve it via ordinary methods, report it here.


Tally (10/4/4)

Keep page

  1. SlimVirgin - "good idea, see whether it works"
    • "There's no reason admins shouldn't have a protected page for discussion. It's a lot better than it happening by e-mail and on IRC as currently happens."
  2. Guettarda - "transparency is good - better than discussing these things by email or irc."
  3. Dan100 - "I fully support this proposal. On Misplaced Pages I would describe myself as a "law-abiding citizen". I tend not to break the rules. Therefore, I have nothing to fear from this :-). And even if one admin does go too far, there are plenty more reasonable, objective admins around to sort the issue out."
    • "This is how I am viewing this page: a clear endorsement for using small blocks for problematic users (a slap on the wrist). It's also more open - block logs are filled with lots of different blocks for myriad reasons; this place can clearly highlight policy breaches and the consequences. It is also a deterrent - a clear display of what will happen if you break the rules. This is good. I think keeping people on the task of writing an encyclopaedia within our rules is more important than slightly nebulous concepts such as perception."
  4. -- Uncle Ed There are 490 admins - okay, maybe only 100 active. If any admin discovers that another has gotten above themselves, they can undo (a) page lock, (b) page deletion, (c) user suspension.
  5. Filiocht Unprotected, and with the stated aim of replacing discussion on IRC/Mailing lists, I am more than happy to support a trial of this page. Thanks for the clarifications, Ed.
    • "I agree with dab: this page is pointless really, and protecting it only serves to reinforce an idea that admins are getting above themselves. In addition, there is a danger that it will encourage admins to enter into controversial blocking without bothering with the troublesome work of using other, less confrontational, problem-solving methods. As I have said elsewhere, fighting fire with fire just burns the whole place down. This page may well become just another can of petrol."
    • "It would be possible to read this page as the cabal have created a place where they can boast of their high-handed actions while denying the victims the right to respond. Of course this would be a gross misrepresentation of your intention"
      • Interested to find my comments from the talk page torned into a vote here without my say-so. Bolding now not to shout but for emphasis as my nect comment is important to me and could easily get lost in the crowd: I am willing to vote in favout of a trial of this page, with the proviso that it be moved to Misplaced Pages:Policy enforcement log (or something similar) and that a proper vote on its continued use be called within one month of today. Filiocht | Talk 08:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  6. CryptoDerk "I'm all for a system that reviews admin actions" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Policy_enforcement_log&diff=15778594&oldid=15764993
  7. --cesarb Useful, as long as it's not protected without reason.
  8. This is an important page and needs to stay. User:Sam Spade
  9. khaosworks. It's worth seeing just where this takes us. --khaosworks 02:57, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Having a protected page is a good idea because it ensures that it is truly admin-only. That helps get rid of a lot of chaff, and I'm sure if there are any wrong calls, other admins can undo the damage and shift the conversation back to WP:AN/I. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 05:37 (UTC) (Note: my vote might not count, since I'm not an admin.)

Do not keep

#user:geni "major policy change .... The only reason which admins can block for ... is disrupting wikipedia (which is controversial)"

  1. dab - "I don't see a reason to have this page, much less to have it protected. We are discussing problematic blocks on WP:AN/I."
  2. nixie, If someone wants to know why I've made a block and it's not covered in the block log I assume they would ask me. This page also associates a user with bad behaviour, the problem being that it may colour other peoples judgement with future disputes.
  3. JYolkowski "Use WP:AN/I for this, unnecessary duplication with the added disadvantage that the page is protected."
    • It's not "open" if non-admins can't edit the page. m:Protected pages considered harmful. If people are disrupting discussion, roll them back, don't create a protected page.
    • "I might think this page might be useful if it weren't protected, but that isn't currently the case."
    • "Protection indicates a lack of trust of non-admins. It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose that couldn't be accomplished by rollback.
  4. Instead of inventing new reasons to block users, admins should spend more time being useful. Grace Note 02:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral/Mixed

  1. JRM - "I don't object to some sort of trial at all—but what is being put on trial? I don't mind sounding obtuse if that's what's needed to get the explanation for idiots.
    • "I can see some use, but what you're saying makes no sense to me."
    • "the general tendency of admins to stick together just because they're admins."
    • It's a block log you can annotate.
    • It's like WP:AN/I, but explicitly editable only by administrators.
    • It's a replacement for the out-of-band IRC/mailing list channels in getting feedback/support on a possibly controversial block.
    • "Other admins will do the same, and do things differently; we hardly if ever compare results, to my knowledge." (emphasis added)
    • "A protected page is still subject to scrutiny by anyone who cares to scrutinize it. In-line discussion by non-admins is made harder, though. There are obvious pros and cons to that, just as there are obvious pros and cons to separating article pages from talk pages."
  2. Bovlb long summary, then goes on to say "This procedure would be lightweight enough that it would reach decisions quickly."
  3. My objection was to its existence as a protected admins-only version of WP:AN. In the current version I'm still not convinced it's useful, but if it makes anybody happy by all means go ahead. --W(t) 22:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)#
  4. I'm not sure what exactly is being voted on.Geni 02:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the poll seems to be confusing Let this page remain permanently vs. Limit its use to admins only. *sigh* I'll have to split the poll in two now. Anyway, the page has remained unlocked since since the 2nd day or so, with no graffiti or reverts. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

Access

Admins will lock this page if needed, but should always leave the talk page unlocked.

Usage

If enough admins agree that a user is violating Misplaced Pages policy, they may suspend that user's editing privileges.

Admins making a note of blocks here should specify which Misplaced Pages policy has been violated. Users may only be suspended for violation of official policies, not semi-policies or guidelines. And please, try to resolve problems without resorting to this.

This is for major stuff, not simple vandalism.

When in doubt

"First, do no harm."

If you're not sure what to do about a problem, remain calm, post on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or discuss the situation below.

FAQ

  • How many admins have to agree? (Use your judgment, that's why you were appointed)
  • How long a suspension? (Use your judgment, but short suspensions are often more effective than long ones)
  • What if you make a mistake? (Don't worry, any admin can reinstate a suspended user)

Useful Links

Logs

Guidelines