Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) at 09:25, 22 February 2008 (er, subst: not subst|). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent Mitrebox (talk · contribs · block log · arb · SPI) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template. If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here. (protection log).

Unblock Request

Nonwikied as I request discussion to ensure the facts are correct.

{{unblock|Reason given on talk page, in section 1, Discussion is split into relevant sections. Request is for discussion and review amongst admins knowledgeable about the main page deletion incident listed in section 1.1.2. Since it is an indefinite block a request is made for all due process and complete reading of statements.}}

Clean Hands Argument

Clean hands is a recognized legal defense in western law. The wikipedia equivalent is in the WP:essay Misplaced Pages:Don't call the kettle black.

From Unclean hands

Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".

Relevance

The citation given in the block log: ()

The blocking Admin has set the block to indefinite citing "until assurances are made that malicious bots will not be used".

As of 2008-02-21 the Admin has not responded to an email asking to detail exactly what assurances entails.

Fact (basis of argument)

Just hours after the block, the blocking Admin* used an unapproved bot to circumnavigate WP protection policies to allow his manipulation and destruction of the content and the history of the main page. | Summary, The whole discussion.

• (* as this is not intended as personal attack on the admin, but an argument on the nature of his actions, the name will not be mentioned in the request.)

Specific Discussion on Fact as described above

Is the description of the Fact accurate? Discuss

No, he didn't destroy the history of the Main Page - he just made it more difficult to navigate. And the Main Page deletion and the associated kerfuffle happened *after* your block, and therefore has nothing to do with it. Graham87 08:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Argument

(But I don't want to read all this, you're just an editor mad about being blocked and I'm prettier., Then read the short version.)

As the block was issued just hours before the Admin started using a bot to make non-useful edits for the purpose of bypassing protections of and then deleting the main page, his citation in the block reason ("until assurances are made that malicious bots will not be used") was issued in bad faith.

The Admin's use of an unapproved and some would call malicious bot had a severe impact to WP, the WP community, and the WP adminship far outweighing the actions of Mitrebox and while Mitrebox is permanently blocked the Admin received no official administrative action whatsoever. The Admin's use of the bot to purposely and willfully circumnavigate specific protections of the main page was a clear slap in the face of almost every WP:policy and guideline.

The Admin's use of an indefinite block combined with the citation and its timing indicates that he at the least may not feel the actions of admins and the adminstered have equal weight (which easily leads to assuming bad faith) and at the worst may act punitively in regard to the actions of others as opposed to his own mistakes.

Requested Action

As such the block on Mitrebox should be released immediately and either:

• reinstated by another Admin whose conduct in this matter is beyond question
  • given a specific citation of the reason blocked
  • and either:
    • changed to a specified amount of time
    • changed to indefinite and given criteria for unblocking in specific quantifiable statements
• reinstated indefinitely by another Admin whose conduct in this matter is beyond question
  • followed by a formal ban request against the user
• not reinstated

Discussion of the argument and requested action

Permanent Blocks are in effect unapproved Bans

Permanent blocks give all the impacts of a WP:Ban but do not have the formal review, approval, or logging processes that the Ban gives. The blocked party is at a disadvantage as compared to a ban candidate. Rogue Admins could conceivably use Permanent bans to circumvent the Ban request process.

From WP:INDEF

An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.

• Was the disruption significant?
• Was it more significant than the actions taken by the banning Admin?
• Was the action a major breach of policy
• Was the action a more serious breach than the actions taken by the banning Admin? (Was it breachier?)

Discussion on the use of permanent blocks as described above

Action that led to the initial block

Initial action that led to the block

The initial action was in response to an edit war that occurred between editor Savvyconsumer7 and editor Mitrebox on February 1, 2008. The war occurred on the United States presidential election, 2008 article.

Actions of the blocked editor

In the days leading up to the event heavy editing was made to the 2008 election articles by named users and anonymous users. These edits either removed candidates, added candidates, reordered candidates, or distorted the candidate images. The general opinion on these articles was that candidates would be listed in alphabetical order as the major parties are. It is by far the least contentious way to list candidates. The sources used to compile candidate lists were ABC, CNN, Fox News, Reuters, NY Times as well as other major media outlets.

To maintain the candidate gallery in its consensued state a bot was created by editor Mitrebox this bot had the following commands.

Read each of the articles.

If the candidate gallery section was different than the candidate gallery section listed in a text file revert the change.

Save the page.

The bot would allow changes to other sections of the article but maintain the order and the content of the candidate gallery.

The bot maintained the order of the candidates preventing Ron Paul from being placed first and preventing the Removal or Reorder of Mike Gravel. The bot also reverted several edits that removed the candidates images by changing the image tag filenames.

Actions of the other editors.

In the days leading up to the incident several editors would add Alan Keyes to one of the many Republican articles or sections of articles and then demand that consensus be achieved on the talk page before removing him. This editors never initiated a poll or request for comment intended to either ascertain or achieve consensus nor did they initiate any sort of comment on the talk page before adding the candidate.

These editors were later found to be Keyes supporters

JBFrenchhorn stated so on the talk page ], ]

Savvyconsumer7 was found to be a Single Purpose Account founded shortly after Keyes announcement to run , only edited 2008 Republican candidate articles and the main 2008 election article , and has a identically named account on Keyes's forum where he has discussed editing wikipedia on behalf of Keyes Content,

The war

Editor Savvyconsumer7 started an edit war with the bot, adding Keyes over 100 times, in each case his edit was removed. This conflict lasted over 3hours.

Actions of the blocked editor during the war

The editor Mitrebox slept, later woke up and microwaved a hot pocket (faint jingle hot pockets).

After Actions

Admin Cowman109 blocked both users 22 hours for edit waring

Editor Savvyconsumer7 cried via email to be unblocked prior to the expiration period. His request was approved

In Editor Savvyconsumer7's unblock log Admin Cowman109 violated the practice of not using the block log to record warnings or other negative events (WP:BP) in his description: ()

User spoke with me through e-mail - blocks are preventative, not punitive, and new evidence points towards malicious intent by the other party in the edit war with a bot..

The description attacks editor Mitrebox in a medium which he can not defend himself and accuses him of malicious intent. Description references New Evidence that was not given to the accused at the time and still has not been presented in any communication.

Editor Mitrebox decided to calmly and respectfully serve out his sentence and reflect on what he learned.

Editor Mitrebox later discovered that he was blocked forever, which is a long time to reflect. He was given no notice of or the reason why he was blocked forever and appealed to block in order to get that information. The request was declined and editor Mitrebox received an ambiguous note "until assurances are made that malicious bots will not be used" . A request to detail the word assurances as "what kind of assurances" has gone unanswered.

End state

Today on the main election page, Gravel remains included and the candidates remain in alphabetical order. Evidence that it is the generally agreed upon state.

Editor Savvyconsumer7 has continued only making edits to republican candidate lists. contribs

Misplaced Pages continues to be a safe and warm place that allows its citizens to quench their thirst for knowledge. Evidence that the bots widespread and rampant disruption on a scale so massive that it required an indefinite block may have been exaggerated. It not like editor Mitrebox deleted the main page. (Misplaced Pages:Don't delete the main page).

(And since I did it twice I should be banned forever for Misplaced Pages:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy. --smiles--)--mitrebox (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Specific Discussion of the edit war listed above

The Short Argument

Admin used an unapproved bot to override WP protective measures at or around the same time the block was initiated

Therefore his blocking reason and citation was not in good faith (do as I say not as I'm about to do)

He appears to hold the actions of himself or other admins in higher regard than the actions of others

Assuming good faith means all good faith edits are equal

Not to be read as : Some good faith edits are more equal than others, Animal Farm

IP, named, admin

I don't know the population of Wallaco County, MN but since you have an IP account I'm gonna undo your addition to the new article

I've been here 4 years and edited 400,000 pages so my statements on the Nintendo Wii are factier

I'm an admin you're not, I can use unapproved bots all I want to circumnavigate protective measures of the main page

He has received no official administrative action

I'm an admin, you're an admin, we're all in a tizy about what you've done, but just don't use an unapproved bot to do THAT more than once. Now lets get back to blocking other people for that

The use of indefinite blocks as a substitute for bans is not right

Blocks are meant as protective not punitive

Blocks for 1, 2 years are just as protective as indefinite ones

Indefinite blocks just to avoid the possibility of vandalism in 2 years is admin laziness

Bans are a formal process that affords the accused a wider resolution process, brings in more admins to review the incident

Indefinite blocks allow circumnavigation of the ban process. (Much like using a bot to circumnavigate protective measures)

--mitrebox (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

General Discussion about the request

Frequently made arguments (A non question FAQ)

A self conversation using statements likely to be made

Your request for comment was circumventing the block and could be grounds for banning. --SomeGuy

I'm already indefinitely blocked. (What more do I have to lose?) I've tried contacting the Admin with no response. I used contacting as a means to ensure the facts surrounding my arguments are correct and bring in more eyes. I've laid out banning as a possible course of action. --mitrebox (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not as serious as deleting the main page.--mitrebox (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This not how unblock requests are handled. You should use the standard unblock request process.--SomeGuy

I had to use a request just to get information on why the block was changed to indefinite as I was not notified. Given the complicated events involving the Admin I needed to bring in technical individuals knowledgeable about the event, as I can't really afford to have someone skip over my arguments and quick decline my sole remaining request. --mitrebox (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-starter

As nearly as I'm able to figure out, you're saying you should be unblocked because the blocking admin, in a totally unrelated incident, made a bad judgment call that shot a bunch of stuff to hell. Besides being irrelevant to your block, this completely misinterprets the clean hands doctrine; even by your own quote: "Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint" (emphasis mine). That is entirely not the case here. If you want to be unblocked, I think you'd have much better odds if you showed some contrition for your use of bots to edit war. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Botlist

• TriviaBot in development
• WhoIsBot in development
• TemplateBot1 in development
• TemplateBot2 in development
• FirstDateBot in development
• CatBot in development
• FactBot in development

Blocked

It goes without saying, but I"ve blocked you for completely disruptive and unacceptable edit warring. Cowman109 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

President template $5/$50K, etc

I'll check on what's going on and attempt closure. I see a longwinded item, but I have yet to read it.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Template discussion

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--STX 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mitrebox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block was extended over 24 hours from its original expiration without due notice or stated reason

Decline reason:

You were using a malicious bot to edit war, and that's earned you a revocation of your editing privileges. east.718 at 20:23, February 1, 2008

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

IP blocked

You attempted to block evade with 70.11.244.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who is now blocked for a month.

That is not acceptable behavior. Don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello George, I'm going to refer to you as SomeGuy. Please take a look at the contribs to see all the horrible horrible evasive edits I made to the sandbox and those user talk pages. --mitrebox (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's be clear on this - The appropriate way for you to appeal a block at this time is to send an email to one or more members of the Arbitration Committee. The wrong way was to do this. The extra-special wrong way was to do this and then complain that you absolutely had to, because we're oppressing you and I'm part of that oppression.

As you've seen fet to behave in an extra-special wrong way, this talk page is going to be locked from further editing. You can appeal to Arbcom on the original block and if approved this will be unlocked too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Assurances

Assurances on your talk page would seem to be the way to go. Rich Farmbrough, 08:49 22 February 2008 (GMT).

huh?

So your sockpuppet told me to come here and do what exactly? Confirm the details of an event? Of what? East and Betacommand and the main page fiasco? What am I going to confirm? I think TimVickers would know more than me. I don't even recall making an edit to whatever you're talking about on WP:AN, but I'll take your word for it. Enigma 09:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Protected user and user talk pages