Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:00, 25 October 2005

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Not a 3RR block

• Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per my previous comments I fully expect to be blocked in about ten minutes, so I'm putting this here now. I'd ask that when I am, Tony Sidaway also be blocked. Although he'll only have three pseudo-reverts, he's clearly being as disruptive as I.
brenneman 02:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea why Aaron is insisting on being blocked. I've certainly not suggested blocking him--everybody knows I don't do 3RR. I've been making some alternative suggestions for bringing a template into line with policy, and Aaron has been doing his best to revert every single attempt. Odd behavior, but certainly not more odd than I'm used to dealing with, sans blocks. --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:David Gerard#IgnoreAllRules - David Gerard 08:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Revert warring is harmful, and both of you are senior admins who should know better than to revert war over an important policy- or process-related page. I am blocking both of you for three hours because this is conduct unbecoming an admin. Both of you, cool down, and discuss on the talk page where consensus lies regarding this page. Radiant_>|< 11:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman isn't an admin. (Though I thought he was too, which is why I feared another Recycling Troll affair.) - David Gerard 11:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Unsure about blocking Tony, did he really revert four times? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I might have reverted once; mostly I did pretty much clean edits every time, and changed the sense of the edit each time in order (in the absence of any talk page response from Aaron) to try to find out what his problem was and try to smooth it down while still finding a version that corresponds to the deletion and undeletion policies. --Tony Sidaway 12:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• In response to Sjakkalle, I have blocked both for revert warring, which by its very definition is disruptive, not for the letter of the 3RR. AdminsEstablished editors should be above edit wars, and remember that three reverts are a limit, not a right. I'm actually surprised to learn that Aaron isn't an admin. Radiant_>|< 11:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• No, I cannot agree with the blocks. I will unblock both of them, although I won't unblock again if someone reblocks (I dislike block wars). At any rate, they should have been given warnings on the talkpages before blocking them for disruption. Besides, they stopped edit warring a long time ago. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • They stopped edit warring about eight hours ago. Okay, I suppose in WikiSpace that counts as a long time. Please note that three hours is a relatively light block, and that both are experienced editors that should already know perfectly well not to edit war. They crossed the line, even if only by an inch or two. Regardless, I am not going to block again, and I hope that they can find a suitable compromise through discussion, or if necessary through the MedCom. Radiant_>|< 12:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What's the point of blocking people for edit warring if they've stopped? Secretlondon 12:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't edit war at all. Check my edits and you'll see that I attempted discussion on the talk page (repeatedly overwritten by Aaron) and that every single one of my edits was a separate, bold attempt at compromise.

Having said that, Radiant's incorrect block had no effect as I was asleep at the time. I caution Radiant against abuse of the blocking feature. Do please check that someone is in fact edit warring before using it. --Tony Sidaway 12:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, I just looked at the block log:

• 11:45, 19 October 2005 Radiant! blocked "User:Tony Sidaway" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Revert war on Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header)

Radiant, what on earth do you think you were playing at? Not only had I not edit warred, I hadn't even touched that article in hours. This was really a very silly response to a long-dead situation. Having attempted and failed to achieve any kind of agreement from Aaron, who kept reverting every single compromise I made, always to the same version, I gave up. I don't see it as my business to act as a policeman against confirmed edit warriors like him. --Tony Sidaway

• You are incorrect. Aaron didn't overwrite anything, he moved your comments to Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review, which is a more suitable place for visibility reasons. Additionally, when you're discussing this with him or indeed anyone, might I suggest that you be more WP:CIVIL and refrain from calling people liars (e.g. "To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth", and "You've twice falsely claimed that I should use the talk page"). Radiant_>|< 12:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I cannot agree that a completely separate page is "a more suitable place for visibility reasons". If I make an edit on a page, I discuss it on the talk page. This is what talk pages are for. I didn't call Aaron a liar, I simply pointed out that he had several time made untruthful statements. He had done so. I can't go around pretending that someone has made a truthful statement when it's obvious that he hasn't. WP:FAITH has its limits. --Tony Sidaway

• But as a matter of fact, the version Aaron reverted to was established after consensual discussion, which you can find here. I would suggest that you read up on it, and that you owe Aaron an apology for wrongly accusing him of making untruthful statements. Radiant_>|< 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The version Aaron reverted to may have had some people who agreed with it; however it seriously misstated Misplaced Pages deletion policy and undeletion policy. VFU isn't a policy page, but it must reflect policy. I owe nobody an apology for correctly pointing out that the notice is contrary to our policies and will be incorrect unless and until we have a site-wide consensus to override our actual deletion and undeletion policies and replace them by the fictions represented in that document. Do not falsely claim that I owe Aaron an apology again. The facts are laid out in our official policy, which cannot be overturned by a small group of editsor claiming that they have consensus to make a statement misrepresenting that policy. And again I remind you that you wrongly blocked me for edit warring, when I did no such thing. --Tony Sidaway 13:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It's something of a classic defense round here to say that, when an individual disagrees with something that many others agree with, that "many" is too small a quantity regardless of how "many" it represents. It's actually little more than an attempt to railroad that individual's opinions over the "many" others. As for policy page X or Y being in conflict with a proposal, I don't see anything wrong with that since, if the proposal receives support, it will amend the policy and the two will then coincide. -Splash 13:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. If Fred Bloggs and his mates decide that they can delete articles beginning with the letter Z and write a page about it, and they all agree, this doesn't amend policy in any way. To amend policy you have to, you know, propose the change and then get a proper site-wide consensus, not just Fred Bloggs and his mates. I've no idea how many people support the version of the VFU header that is contrary to policy, but it doesn't matter how many there are since it's contrary to policy and thus unenforcable. There's no alternative really, if you want to change policy, do so, but don't create these little ruritanian fiefdoms outside the policy and expect to get away with it. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • An appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy. Radiant_>|< 13:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• As Splash says. Additionally, take a look at page history. At first glance, there is an obvious edit war going on. At second glance, Tony wasn't actually reverting, since all his versions differ from one another, leading to his claim that it wasn't an edit war. However, at third glance, all Tony's versions come down to the same issue, and therefore it was an edit war.
• The issue is this: if an admin considers a deletion to be "out of process", should that admin unilaterally restore the article, or should he list it on VFU to determine whether in fact it was out of process? Tony's opinion is the former, consensual opinion is the latter. The Undeletion Policy agrees with the latter - "Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" is listed as an argument to request undeletion, not to unilaterally do it.
• The reason for the debate is that in the past, some admins have taken a very liberal view of deletions being "out of process". Some other admin must have thought the deletion was in process, or he wouldn't have deleted it. And if such controversy exists between two admins, it behooves us to discuss it to find out which of the two opinions has consensus. And that is precisely what VFU is for. Radiant_>|< 13:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Radiant, if you're going to keep saying "Tony is incorrect" in your edit summary, you're going to have to demonstrate that I'm incorrect.

You falsely describe my example as an appeal to ridicule. Abolutely not. It is simply a fact that you need to amend the deletion policy if you want to do something that it doesn't allow. You can't just get a group of people together who agree to ignore it.

You're going round in circles on the edit war, but at least you now agree that I wasn't reverting. So we move forwards inch by inch. To claim that my version all came down to the same issue is to ignore the fact that the only thing they had in common that they all stated somewhere that VFU operates under the deletion policy and the undeletion policy. WHich is obviously true.

You write: if an admin considers a deletion to be "out of process", should that admin unilaterally restore the article, or should he list it on VFU to determine whether in fact it was out of process? Tony's opinion is the former, consensual opinion is the latter. The Undeletion Policy agrees with the latter

• To make non-admins able to see what their talking about on VFU, I have no problem with such an article being temp deleted until such time the VFU discussion is closed. - Mgm| 07:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Undeletion policy states that obvious out-of-process deletions can be undone unilaterally. In the past where an admin has attempted to speedy it again I've invariably taken the matter to AfD, where the article is almost invariably kept (you may remember those two Iranian artists, and the jazz drummer). I've also done this when challenged for an WP:IAR undeletion (the latest being the Wolters case which got a very strong endorsement from AfD). These endorsements do make a nonsense of the claim that consensual opinion is against undeletion of good articles that have been wrongly deleted.

You write: "Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" is listed as an argument to request undeletion, not to unilaterally do it. Not sure what you're saying here. I have not claimed that that an article can be unilaterally undeleted under the undeletion policy for that reason. As you're well aware, the only times I've undeleted an article deleted in process have been under WP:IAR. Only out-of-process deletions can be handled unilaterally under the undeletion policy. It seems that it is I who am constantly having to correct you on points of fact. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are arguing about undeletion perhaps you'd be better taking it to the talk page concerned? Secretlondon 15:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I will once more demonstrate where you are incorrect.
• Your argument to "delete articles beginning with the letter Z" is in fact an appeal to ridicule, defined among others as "stretching the argument's logic to an absurd extreme".
• You said above to Sjakkalle that you "might have reverted once". Apparently you are unsure whether or not you were reverting. In any case, the difference between a revert war and an edit war is a matter of semantics. You were edit warring. You should know better.
• You state that all your edits "stated somewhere that VFU operates under the deletion policy and the undeletion policy", but that is incorrect, because this one does not. At any rate, all of Aaron's versions already reference both those policies, so I find it hard to believe that all your edits were merely to indicate that VFU uses those policy (which nobody disputes anyway). Rather, it seems from your edits that you wish to be able to ignore VFU discussion, which your earlier actions also seem to indicate.
• You state that "Undeletion policy states that obvious out-of-process deletions can be undone unilaterally", however right at the top of that policy it says "Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion * Deletion "out of process"".
• You state that you "have not claimed that that an article can be undeleted under the undeletion policy for that reason" (the reason being that "WP would be better with the article restored"), when in fact you have claimed exactly that.
• You just admitted that you have "undeleted an article deleted in process (have been) under WP:IAR", once more showing that you wish to be able to ignore VFU. That is simply improper. People sometimes make mistakes, and claiming that any action is out of process does not make it so; someone else must have considered it in process, or he wouldn't have made the action. If you are correct about an undeletion, then discussing it at VFU will underline that fact, the only difference being a few days' waiting. If you are incorrect, then discussing it at VFU will show that you should not have done it unilaterally. VFU does work.
• At any rate it is hipocritical to cite WP:IAR in your defense (twice), when you are accusing other people of breach of policy.

• This is boiling down to discussing semantics, so after this post I will drop the matter. You have been proven to be incorrect several times, and consensus has been shown to disagree with you on the wording of the VFU header. The mature thing to do would be to admit that you were wrong, apologize to Aaron for the conflict, put the issue behind you and continue with the solid contributions that you usually make - for you are a good editor, and we all make mistakes now and then. HAND. Radiant_>|< 15:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Tony Sidaway states or implies above that the discusion on the former VfU page was not sufficiently "site-wide" to constitute a consensus to change policy. (I would argue that it merely clarified policy without making any essential change, but that is another matter). These discussion were announced at the village pump, on RFC, at AfD, and CfD, and I think here, on more than one occasion. The discussion continued for over a month. If that is not enough "site-wide" visibility, I would like to know what is. Tony said "If Fred Bloggs and his mates decide that they can delete articles beginning with the letter Z and write a page about it, and they all agree, this doesn't amend policy in any way." I hardly think then widly advertised discuission on the creation and scope of Deletion Review and the mechanics and standards it would use, is comperable to "a page created by Fred Bloggs and his mates". I think that there in fact has been quite sufficient consensus to consider this a change to any policy that conflicts with it, and that it would be justified to simply edit the Undeletion Policy page in accordance with the discussion held on VfU talk. DES 15:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with DES here. I talked to Tony on IRC yesterday and tried to explain all of this. I also have to add that we have been discussing the new scope of VFU for about two months now, and that Splash and I left messages in the talk pages of all editors who had been involved in the discussion, including Tony. Titoxd 01:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously there has been no consensus to change the deletion policy and the undeletion policy such that they'd accommodate the agreed wording of the VFU header (in fact, any and all such changes have been strongly resisted when there have been attempts to change it). I think we have to edit the VFU header to conform with those policies, otherwise decisions made through deletion review on the false assumptions in that header will be regularly overtaken by policy. This isn't a new problem; the old VFU page header also misstated policy. Now I've no great problem with the idea of a clique within Misplaced Pages that makes decisions that are incompatible with the site-wide deletion and undeletion policies, but I do think it would be nice if instead we had a proper deletion review forum that had the support of those policies instead of having its effectiveness limited and continually finding itself at odds with those policies.

And also of course Radiant falsely accuses me of misrepresenting my edits; all of them were efforts to make the header conform with policy. He falsely accuses me of obfuscating between revert war and edit war; I did neither as he well knows. Every single edit I did was a distinct attempt to find common ground between deletion/undeletion policy and the idea of deletion review. Aaron's version may have referred to policies, but it grossly misstated them and was in conflict with them.

Then we have this priceless gem: You state that "Undeletion policy states that obvious out-of-process deletions can be undone unilaterally", however right at the top of that policy it says "Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion * Deletion "out of process"".

I find it impossible to believe that Radiant believes that the above means that *all* out-of-process deletions must be taken to VFU. The undeletion policy explicitly denies this, granting administrators the right to undelete them unilaterally.

I am perfectly capable of going through every single one of Radiant's other points an demonstrating how--with a succession of often quite breathtaking bits of illogic, and marshalling citations to edits that don't say at all what he claims they say, he's managed to mire himself into believing that he's proven me to to be wrong. But actually I don't have to do that; I think I've done enough to demonstrate the sheer breadth of the cracks in the class of reasoning that he brings to this forum. --Tony Sidaway 13:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Translation: I Tony Sidaway think I am God's gift to Misplaced Pages. I am always right, 100% of the time and will not entertain the possibility that I am wrong. Anyone who attempts to logically point out that I am wrong will be wrong themselves by default. Anyone who pokes holes in my arguments or exposes my reasoning to be false is most likely an idiot. I don't have to defend my beliefs or opinions as I have divine right to rule here on Misplaced Pages, much like the Kings of England had divine right. I am perfectly capable of claiming the ability to defend myself though in a logical manner, though I will never ever demonstrate this capability. As God's gift to Misplaced Pages, I don't have to.

Seriously Tony, come off it and quit with the trolling. Radiant is dead right, if you disagree, fucking pony up. Don't just strut about like a peacock. Agriculture 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't expect him to- arrogance has been a hallmark of Tony's style from day 1. The comments made by oppose voters here should make that clear.--Scimitar 17:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I'm well aware, but someone has to have the balls to call him out for being an arrogant troll and let him know we're tired of his crap. IMHO, he needs to be deoped. He shows no responsibility in his admin privelage usage, and extreme arrogance. Agriculture 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the removal of admin powers is generally viewed as punishment, and Tony hasn't done anything worthy of extreme punishment. He's simply lost my (and evidently your) confidence as an administrator, and any ArbCom hearing on that basis would be (rightly) viewed as frivolous.--Scimitar 17:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: I don't fancy your chances against me in an arbcom case. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And I wouldn't bring you there. Nothing you have done is worthy of consideration for the Arbitration Committee; my loss of confidence is reflective of your tendencies toward unilateralism, and your seeming inability to explain your own views without mocking or criticizing other good editors. As I said earlier, any such attempt would be rightly viewed as frivolous.--Scimitar 18:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course you don't. You are after all the Great Tony Sidaway, God's gift to Misplaced Pages. You still haven't answered his questions, and I am beginning to side with them. TheChief (PowWow) 18:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Ok that was unfair and I will apologize. I'm having a bad day. Tony, these people are making an excellent point in my opinion. Why don't you just answer the query. TheChief (PowWow) 18:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep it civil, people. We're not here to bite anyone's head off. Titoxd 18:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of frustration around. However this doesn't justify the things that have been said. I give a full, indeed exhaustive, response to Radiant's rather poorly researched attempt to make some points on his talk page. The personal attacks that seek to represent my behavior as dictatorial in any manner are simply false; I cannot impose my views on anyone. However since the deletion review is as a matter of fact somewhat adrift from Misplaced Pages policy, I'm entitled to say so and to take reasonable steps to remedy that. Having done that, I left it there a day or two ago and all I've been doing since then is dealing with misplaced, ineptly composed personal attacks by people who don't seem to be able to understand that people can have legitimate disagreements on interpretation of policy. --Tony Sidaway 08:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Radiant removed the entirety of that as a personal attack. I apologise if it was taken as such, but while it was frank about the poor logic and failure to ensure that citations matched the claims made, it was intended rather as a defence against what Radiant's baseless personal attacks on me. I have copied it to my own user talk page. --Tony Sidaway 09:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility, personal attacks, and poor response to criticism. Radiant_>|< 12:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  With User:Agriculture on your side, it's a slam-dunk - David Gerard 14:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  Am I the only one that finds it disconcerting to see a member of the ArbCom expressing judgments about petty interpersonal disputes out of the process, let alone see them do it in a sarcastic tone, using argument by association? Zocky 01:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'm shocked that you would consider invoking Agriculture's name to be sarcastic use of argument by association. I don't see how anyone could default to any less than the greatest of good faith in Agriculture - David Gerard 10:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  Hmm, the central issue at which I was hinting seems to have gone undetected, so let me spell it out: An arbitrator's habit to comment on inter-personal disputes outside of the context of ArbCom (a) increases the likelyhood that the said arbitrator will have to recuse themself in future cases, thus creating potential problems for ArbCom's workflow, (b) damages the perception that arbitrators are fair and don't take sides, which is crucial for maintaining the trust in the conflict resolution process and thus general good will on the site. Zocky 12:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

IAR

This might be relevant -- I've put together a (perhaps too long) discussion of why WP:IAR shouldn't be used in defense of out-of-bounds administrative actions. It's here on the talk page. --FOo 10:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It won't fly. The full formulation of the rule is: ignore all rules, including this one. We need administrative IAR to justify all those speedies that don't quite fit the criteria. --Tony Sidaway 13:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No we don't. When speedies don't fit the criteria, they aren't valid speedies. They should be taken to AfD. If there are too many, we may need to change or add to the speedy criteria. If things that don't fit the criteria are speedied, tehy should be taken to Deletion Review and undelted, and i am going to start doing this more often when i see invalid speedies. DES 15:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would work better to contact the speedying admin first? "I notice that you deleted X, but I don't see what speedy criterion applies. If you think it should go, could you indicate a specific speedy criterion, or undelete it an list it on AfD? Sorry to be picky, but I think Misplaced Pages would be better off with this article, and the matter needs to be looked at more closely." Incidentally, if you find that you can't honestly and with a straight face say the last sentence–particularly the bit about Misplaced Pages being better off with the article in question–then is there any reason to ask for the speedy to be reversed? (Don't ask for things you don't actually want done!) If you find that you want/have to undelete the article yourself, please have the courtesy to (politely) notify the admin who deleted it in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have done that on several occasions, the response is usually no response. And let me be clear, i am quite willing to suggest undeletion for things that I would absouletly suggest to delete on AfD. I really think that the integrity of the process is more important than any single article, becaus the community trust that lets wikipedia work is based on that integrity of process. Out-of-process deletions are violations of consensus, and as such, bad in themselves, no matter what the content of the article. DES 17:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus-building is an important process, but it doesn't always have to happen through individual AfDs. If a certain (perhaps ill-defined) class of articles is regularly deleted through AfD–take articles that advertise non-notable companies, for instance–we find that those articles tend to get speedied more often as time goes by. Sometimes the speedy deletion criteria are updated to reflect this; from what I've seen, usually not. Modifying CSD is time consuming, and it's hard to craft new criteria that are both broad enough to be useful and narrow enough not to cause significant collateral damage.

Are the admins who speedy these articles acting outside of Misplaced Pages consensus, then? It can be argued that they are acting within the wishes of the community. If they are correctly identifying these articles as belonging to a class that is regularly and uniformly deleted by the consensus at AfD, then the deletion itself strikes me as a reduction in red tape rather than a defiance of consensus. Same result, but a lot less time and bandwidth.

The danger, of course, is that an admin will not make correct judgements about which articles qualify for this sort of speedy. Since VfU and DR are usually pretty quiet places, I would suggest that this is at least circumstantial evidence that most of these outside-of-policy deletions are nevertheless reasonable and tacitly accepted by most of the community.

The flip side of an admin's ability to make such discretionary deletions must be an equal helping of accountability. Any deletions justified by WP:NOT or plain common sense rather than WP:CSD should be reversed when questioned and nominated for normal deletion. Admins who find their deletions questioned frequently should engage in a bit of introspection—and lighten their touch on the delete button. (On the third hand, I'm going to boldly say that deletions shouldn't be questioned solely because they don't meet the CSD. That's just wasting everybody's time.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. IAR is about ignoring red tape and interpreting the spirit of policy (ie: that we're here to build an encyclopedia). If someone is seen to be acting in a manner that doesn't serve the encyclopedia, he tends to fail. If he acts in a manner that does, he tends to succeed. --Tony Sidaway 08:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would note as an aside that Misplaced Pages policy often comes about because of admins who ignore rules. Their common sense actions are tacitly accepted by the community, and eventually someone gets around to writing a formal policy to describe the new state of affairs. Misplaced Pages policy is inherently flexible and negotiable. The spirit of the rules is far more important than their letter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I give what I consider to be an eminently acceptable example of an RC patroller ignoring all rules in speedying an ad for a website design firm, here:

Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules

--Tony Sidaway 17:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon insists on a particular version of Disco; need an outside opinion

The anon User:148.85.1.102 keeps making the same unsourced and strongly POV change to Disco over and over: ,,,, etc. Notes on the article and user talk pages haven't worked; the only thing to get a reaction so far is an HTML comment I added insisting on a source and an NPOV rewrite, and the HTML comment got changed to a (later-removed) personal attack: .

It seems to me that there are clear WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:CITE issues going on here, but I'm also right in the thick of things. Can another admin please check in here? Thanks. - jredmond 18:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I woulkd up blocking both parties for 3RR violations. It might be argued that User:148.85.1.102's persistant revsersions were vandalism, in which case my block on User:Jredmond was a mistake, but this looked to me like a PoV/Edit dispute, albiet one where one party (the anon) was seriously uncivil. If anyone thinks I was in error to block User:Jredmond, please undo the block. DES 19:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The anon was inserting his own POV into the article and was failing to provide a source despite being asked. jredmond was right to remove unsouced material. He was merely enforcing WP:NPOV Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That says it's ok for someone to revert unsourced material without limit, just because they disagree with it. -Splash 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That's pretty much exactly what I am saying. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a license to edit war, no? Next time a warrior doesn't like some material, they'll say they don't think those are sources and just keep on removing the material. Isn't it much much better to let other editors carry the torch once you've done the job 3 times? -Splash 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This wasn't a case of one editor not liking a source that another provided. it was a case of one editor adding his own personal opinion to an article and repeatedly reinserting it despite numerous attempts by jredmond to get him to read our NPOV policy and our cite sources policy. Of course it's better to get the community to carry the torch though.(as I've already said on jredmond's talk page) But when an anon repeatedly ignores our policies, inserts his own POV into articles, ignores all attempt at discussion, refuses to cite any sources,and starts atting abusive comments to articles then that's not edit warring, that's vandalism. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, ok, in this case I agree. It was such blatant POVery and attackery that the reverts were ok. I was just a bit concerned about the generality of the principle. -Splash 00:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of generalities. Life is too complicated. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Threat

User:Karmafist (an admin?) threatening to "punish" another user over a mildly-disputed edit to Coleshill, Warwickshire; also falsely claiming consensus for his version of that edit. 08:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems like Karmafist tried to reason with you on your actions. Could the wording have been nicer, possibly, but from the context, it seems there has been discussion over this before, and they are giving you the benefit of the doubt, but with a stiff warning. «»Who?¿? 08:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is the kind of conduct we want out of administrators. There's no part of a Misplaced Pages administrator's duties which permits him or her to "punish" anyone. Neither the Administrators policy, nor the Blocking policy, make any reference to "punishment"; and I'm not aware of any consensus discussions that suggest that anyone thinks it's acceptable to "punish" here. (Hell, even the Arbitration Committee reminds us all once in a while that its role is not judicial or disciplinary.)

Blocking is part of administrator duties for a narrow range of purposes related to preventing disruption or enforcing policy. Blocking a user because one thinks that user should be "punished" is not a judgment administrators are charged with making. Therefore, the threat is empty at best and abusive at worst.

I don't see this as just a matter of "wording", as Who suggests above. It sounds to me like a lack of attention to what the role of administrators is supposed to be here. It's no part of that role to sit in moral judgment over other editors or to decide that they require discipline or punishment. I suggest that Karmafist be warned not to threaten his/her fellow editors with "punishment" which s/he does not have the authority to impose. I recommend review of the relevant policies (linked above). --FOo 10:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant mainly that the user could have been blocked for violating 3RR and Karmafist did not do that, "punishment" as they put is was poor wording, but it was an option. This is why I say it was poor wording, as well as the "homework" remarks. I still think that the benefit of the doubt was given, and gave the user a fair warning to decease their activities or they would be blocked. This is not much different from the test templates, except for the poor choice of wording. «»Who?¿? 10:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The user concerned (me) didn't breach 3RR (another user did, and - oddly - no action has been taken); the "punishement" was threateend in case the admins prefered wording was changed; not for a (further) 3RR reversion. Andy Mabbett 10:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What I'm finding amusing in Misplaced Pages middle management is the way that some admins enforce the rules on editors with scrupulous attention to detail, but feel quite free to take a far more liberal approach when it comes to themselves. Funny, but one would expect admins to be role models rather than exceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.25.122 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

the wording in question was:

I'm reverting your edit now since apparently you decided to ignore verification before changing most of the edit we reached by consensus above. I should block you for this, but i'll be nice and let you revert again without punishment

imho this shows a deplorable misunderstanding of the role of an admin. Or, since the context is the 3RR, a misunderstanding of the 3RR, since the "punishment" would have been for 3, not 4 reverts. It is my general impression that more and more admins begin to think of themselves less like janitors and more like sheriffs or vassals. With a population of nigh 600 admins, it also becomes difficult to recognize problematic patterns early (also since most complains on this page are bogus, so it won't do to inspect the 'most complained about' admins, these tend to be the most valiant troll-fighters). There are several approaches to address this.

• make very sure that new admin candidates have a good understanding of, and respect for policy and their role. yes, admins' behaviour should be better than average, they do have some responsibility as 'role models', showing what is considered wiki-like behaviour. new admins should understand that this is part of what is required of them.
• make it binding policy that no admin should use his powers in content disputes where s/he is involved
• maybe instigate an official de-adminning procedure at last. I am not saying that karmafist has done anything to make him a candidate for de-adminning, mind you, but the mere presence of a procedure that makes losing adminship as little a "deal" as gaining it may do wonders for some admins' manners. I know such a thing has been turned down before as a trollish proposal. But even back then I maintained that with the ever growing admin population, it may at some point become necessary.

dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My block was not related to 3RR(he had done this twice earlier in the week, although it was seen as ambiguous since User:G-Man also was seen as an equal contributor to the edit warring. My block was to his violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT, and Key Policy #4 of WP:RULES. While I respect most of the comments above, i'm frightened to see that some other users who quote policy don't seem to understand this, despite the fact that all of those pages say "This is official Misplaced Pages Policy" at the top of their pages.

To the comment regarding that no admin should act upon pages that they are involved in, the only reason I was involved in Coleshill, Warwickshire was to help try and stabilize the situation there, which had been in the midst of an edit war. Since i've stepped in, except for 2 reverts by Pigs , , including a revert of (Leonig Mig)'s edit], a user that he has publically badmouthed on his user page, also in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT, albeit, more to the point where it's disputed to say so due to user space philosophies.

I commented to this board as well as Pig's RfC because my goal is not to ban him, but to make him realize that he has to collaborate with other people here on edits when things get hot. After seeing an e-mail threat from him(copied at his RfC), I posted the comment below since the ban would probably just lead to more bans instead of the goal above. That's not my goal, but if Pigs continues to act disruptively, I have no problems with banning him again for longer periods of time. I apologize if my actions were construed as a threat, which as stated above, was not my intention. Karmafist 14:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in this particular quarrel, but it's a bad thing for us all that there are people roving round like Robocop with an attitude problem, and especially when they are supposed to be in a position of responsibility. Administrators do not own wikipedia and have absolutely no right to talk about "punishing" anyone, or to address editors in such a condescending and insulting way (arrogance, petty sniping etc). Even malicious and persistent vandals, as opposed to bona fide contributors with strongly-held beliefs, should be dealt with civilly. This is not the first time I've seen unbridled and even puerile aggression from people (little more than children in some cases) proudly flaunting their "admin" status, and it's just not acceptable. Such people should take some time out to read the documents on civility they like to set as "homework". Flapdragon 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There was no "e-mail threat"; to claim otherwise is a lie. Karmafist is now claiming that "there's nothing to apologize about for the millionth time, and hopefully you'll eventually realize this since everyone has agreed on that point"; that I'm "wasting time complaining to everyone" and is threatening to block me indefinitely. Andy Mabbett 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Scottfisher

Persistent copyright violations and other "misdemeanours" by User:Scottfisher, who deletes most references to them from his talk page, unanswered. Andy Mabbett 11:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page; if the copyvios continue, please let us know here. android79 12:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this is troublesome. Unless the user cleans up their act and marks all their copyvio images (marked as pd-self) for speedy deletion I think the best course of action is IfDing all the user's images: we have no way of knowing which are and aren't copyright violations. --fvw* 14:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be a software-level "this user can't upload media" flag for this kind of situation. android79 14:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo has said in the past that users who persistently and intentionally violate copyright are to be banned. Dragons flight 14:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, there's no reason to allow users like that to continue to contribute text either. Let's give him one last chance to mend his ways though, but if they're not gone by this time tomorrow I'd fully support a block. --fvw* 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a clear statement from Jimbo on that? Perhaps a clear-cut final warning on his talk page will set him straight. All I got in response to my warning was "Ok." android79 14:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Lying about the provenance of a photo is seriously bad plagiarism for which one can and should be banned" . Dragons flight 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, DF. He's been duly warned. android79 15:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Note this recent edit and the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett 14:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted that edit. However that did come before the most recent talk page warning. His last edit at the moment was to acknowledge the warning. He also seems to have added a few images by linking to their original source and listing them in External Links, but I don't know that that is actually a problem. However, if he misbehaves again, a block is in order. Ëvilphoenix 18:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked and images listed on WP:PUI. --fvw* 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked him, to give him a chance to correct the problems. However, will be perfectly happy to re-instate the block if he engages in copyright violation or does not work to address the issues. Ëvilphoenix 19:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

User:W**** ** ****s

W**** ** ****s (talk · contribs) Either Willy himself or a troll. Either way, a block is called for. Demiurge 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours just to be safe.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would have thought something a lot more severe was called for. Would you like to rethink? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm blocking it indefinitely. A 24 hour block doesn't help against a sleeper account. And Willy ought to know that there are six, and not five letters in "wheels". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'm new to the blocking thing, and was hesitant to go too far. But, yes, the name is inappropriate in itself.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's odd that they only sent the message to recently blocked users. It's a pattern we may want to look for. I understand that this could be nothing, and there are several permutations of it, but it's just an idea. «»Who?¿? 13:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie, that's the right thing to do. If you have trouble deciding between blocking and not blocking, don't block. If you have trouble deciding between a short and a long block, go with the short one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

I noticed this article - Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy had been created by a User:Andyphamilton if you look at the history. Is this a hoax article, or a bogus one created to gain attention?

This article needs a good checking over. Can someone post about it on this talk page please?? --Whiteheat8 13:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax to me. The "Roger Weierstrass" mentioned in the article does not appear to exist. The article is so vague that any verification will likely be impossible. I suspect it may be a pun on the word "briefs." android79 14:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure whether this comes under the "patent nonsense" speedy deletion criterion (it's semantically coherent at least) so I've started an AFD. Demiurge 14:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Andyphamilton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Willy sock or imitator. This article is almost definitely a hoax. Any objections to speedying it? android79 14:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Page has been restored by 82.42.151.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), can someone block and speedy again? Also WoW it's Lanarkshire! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deserves a block too. Demiurge 17:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've deleted but I'm not going to block - its an IP used by public computer terminals (probably libraries). They will have set time booked. I'd rather delete if it reoccurs. (Curiously this NW England libraries IP has previously been blocked for inpersonating Jack Sarfatti). Secretlondon 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Month long revert war: Yorkshire Terrier

Over the past several weeks, an anonymous user keeps changing the main picture on Yorkshire Terrier to a rather bad picture of a yorkie (gabby). These reverts happen a couple of times every few days, I think we are up to 20 reverts now. We've attempted to have a discussion on the Talk page to no avail. Compromise was attempted by featuring the picture in the article elsewhere. Virtually all the members of the dog project have reverted this user more than once, and the anon won't quit. The main IP address that is revert-warring here is 68.99.130.81. There are other anon IP addresses reverting back to the gabby photo as well, see the Talk page for full details, but I think that these are the same user from multiple machines. The original picture uploader and dog owner is User:Arizonaland, both the arizonaland account and the main anon IP address reverter seem to be editing the same two articles therefore I suspect that the 68.99.130.81 user is just the not-logged-in dog owner doing this for vanity's sake. - Trysha 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected. · Katefan0 20:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Slur removed per page policy

Please remove personal attacks and other egregiously or maliciously irrelevant postings on this page, compare page policy at the top. Please remove pure insult threads speedily, same way as you'd delete a pure "insult page". Bishonen | talk 00:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Bad edits

Can someone take a look at this and this and this, please? This admin has a history of making bad edits for personal reasons, regardless of whether the user is blocked or not. See here.

The user who made them is called Skyring and has been banned by the Arbcom. Under the Arbcomm ruling every one of his edits once made using a sockpuppet during his ban is to be reverted on sight irrespective of quality. The user has been bombarding Misplaced Pages with upwards of 30 sockpuppets in the last few days. He admitted that he was secretly editing using other identities. He made the mistake of using one of his secret identities tonight to launch a sockpuppet personal attack and was rumbled. As per the arbcom ruling, all his edits made at that IP since his ban were rolled back. Under Misplaced Pages rules, banned users are not allowed to contribute anything to Misplaced Pages, whether context, layout changes or even spelling corrections. All articles created for them while circumventing their ban are also supposed to be deleted on sight.

Even Chris Baty, which he created from scratch? You're going to have to point to the EXACT reference justifying deletion of whole articles, not just asserting that it's so because you say so. --Calton | Talk 00:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, yes. From Misplaced Pages:Ban#Enforcement:

Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

As a general guideline, consider if you found the text in question on some open content website elsewhere - is it sufficiently high quality that you would copy it to Misplaced Pages. If not, you probably shouldn't reinstate it. Also, you should be aware of possible problems with the text. For example, if a banned user is known to be biased on some subject, you should be especially careful to check such text for bias.

If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Misplaced Pages community.

Deletion: It is not possible to revert newly created articles, as there is nothing to revert to. However, such pages are a candidate for speedy deletion. Non-sysops can list such pages on speedy deletions instead, adding a {{delete}} header.

If someone else has edited the page, particularly if they have made substantive edits, deletion is not appropriate. If you feel it is necessary, try instead to edit the page to remove or rework content contributed by the banned user, and keep content contributed by others. If you feel a newly created article may have been deleted in error, list it on votes for undeletion. For example, you might list a page if you think it's a case of mistaken identity, or because you feel it is of sufficiently high quality (see note for reverts, above).

Titoxd 00:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverts:All edits by a banned user...may be reverted by any user...We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users...If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Misplaced Pages community.

Deletion: If someone else has edited the page, particularly if they have made substantive edits, deletion is not appropriate. If you feel it is necessary, try instead to edit the page to remove or rework content contributed by the banned user, and keep content contributed by others.

There's a difference between "must" and "may be" that's been (presumably) inadvertantly glossed over, and Jtdirl certainly in the past has completely missed the there is no benefit in reverting that edit again part.

Skyring's jerky behavior is being enabled, as the pop psychologists like to say. That, more than any edits that remain, is what's giving him his jollies. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring has also been banned from the Wikilist for abusive behaviour. Due to his continued breaches of his ban, users have restarted his one year ban as and from his last edit. Given his edit here, that means that his one year ban restarts as and from now. FearÉIREANN\ 23:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards