Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:05, 18 October 2007

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6

Question about 71.76.62.9 block

I'm a Wikiquote admin looking into potential problems with our users. I see that you declined an unblock request on this IP address (after a username operating from this IP performed some WoW-style vandalism), saying "THis appears to be a fixed ip…". Could you tell me how you deduced this? RoadRunner (the IP range's registered operator) provides broadband connections to many residential communities, so while the assigned IP addresses may not change very often, many are probably officially dynamic. I ask because, if this address is indeed at least semi-permanent, we would definitely want to watch any users associated with it, but I also wouldn't want to unreasonably worry about bad-faith editing if it was truly dynamic. Thank you for your help. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly speaking I can't remember how I came to that conclusion and rerunning the rdns and whois checks now I see evidence that this is a dynamic ip rather and fixed. So unless its changed since the block (unlikely) it appears that I screwed up. Spartaz 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this. No significant harm seems to have been done, since, as you pointed out, the block expired quickly enough, and subsequent edits from this IP don't bear any resemblance to its earlier misuse. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Christians AfD

Hello Spartaz. I noticed you closed this AfD, saying the result was Delete and Salt. However, you did not say on what grounds this result was based. What were they? Thank you. Nick Graves 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay - I'm away. Basically its indiscriminate information. Even the way it was framed meant that inclusion was too hit and miss to be properly encyclopaedic and its too broad an area to properly define a manageable list. Spartaz 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response. I happen to disagree with this interpretation of the list criteria, but I respect your decision. I inquired only because I wanted to make sure the closure gave due regard to the arguments presented, and was not merely a result of "vote" counting. Would you be willing to add this deletion rationale to your closure message at the AfD page, just for the record? Thank you, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Done Spartaz 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I have another question. Since you're the closing admin for the deleted article, I wanted to check with you before going ahead with Lists of Christians. It would not contain a general list of individuals (which was the target of the criticism in the last two AfDs), but would rather be a navigational aid for existing lists of limited scope in the pattern of Lists of people. This type of list has precedent in such articles as Lists of Jews and Lists of Muslims, both of which have been deemed acceptable by community consensus. Such a list of lists would inevitably be similar in some respects to the deleted list, but would be different in a way that avoids what many editors have deemed to be problematic in the recent AfDs. Please let me know what you think. Nick Graves 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you giving it a go. Ultimately these things are down to community consensus and there might need to be a discussion to establish this but I won't initiate this. Interesting idea and at least it saves the problem of a diffuse unmanagable mess of information. Go ahead. Spartaz 06:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cydonia Mensae

Hi Spartaz. I'm very sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid that there may be trouble over at Cydonia Mensae again. The anon block there recently expired and our anon friend 193.203.82.194 has just come right back and altered the article to a POV and inaccurate state. I've not reverted this change yet to avoid triggering yet another edit war, but I have posted a request for him/her to clarify what they think is wrong with the article. I'll wait a day or two to see if that makes progress at all, but if it doesn't I suspect an edit war may result. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know what's up. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the LifeRing deletion

Hi, Spartaz. Marty Nicolaus, the CEO of LifeRing, happens to be a copyright lawyer as his day job, and contends that there is no copyright violation if they give their permission for the information to be used. I believe that this means that they have to post permission somewhere on Misplaced Pages. I'm working with him to make sure that the information that gets posted maintains NPOV. Robert Rapplean 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostargue

You said that Mostargue was a sock and has been blocked (User_talk:Mostargue#Blocked). Where can I find the evidence that you have collected against the user? Also, if I violate 3rr, but am "constructively discussing changes on the talk page", then I will be also be warned and not blocked?Bless sins 19:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Check the user's early contributions. 3rd or 4th edit refering to a wp prefix policy. Almost unbelieveable overlap between their area of interest and that of kirbytime and recent edits stalking and harrassing an established user. Clearly they have been here before and if they are not an abusive sock then all the owner needs do is identify themselves (I'll take an e-mail) and I will unblock. Concerning 3RR, I'm not the only admin would is prepared to give a final warning to an established good faith editor who strays over the line while discussing changes. I also took into account that another established editor of the template left a message of support on the report and that they were being provoked by an harrassing sockpuppet. I don't think my warning left much doubt about the consequences of any future infraction. Seems to me that admins are generally damned if they block and damned if they don't. Ultimately our responsibility is to act in a way that supports the creation of the encyclopaedia and warning a productive user and blocking a sock seemed to me to be the most practical way of doing this. If you are still concerned about this, I can always stick the decision up on an/i for review. Spartaz 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So based on only two edits (the "third" one , and the "fourth" one ) you conclude that the user is a sockpuppet of Kirbytime. Did you compile any extensive evidence? Was there a checkuser that established a connection between the two? Did you even give the user any chance to defend him/herself before blocking him/her?

And after all that you give the user an indefinite block (one of the harshest punishments you can give). Pardon me, but maybe you should have taken extra steps before blocking the user.

Regarding 3rr. I'm not questioning your decision, nor am I asking you to revoke it. What is done, has been done and can't be changed. But I want a clarification for the future. Many users (myself included) have been blocked for 3rr while discussing changes. Why is it that whether a user is blocked, who has violated 3rr, depends on whether an admin think he/she is an "established good faith editor"? And who gets to decide whether an editor is "good faith" or not?Bless sins 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Checkuser came back inconclusive but that doesn't mean the user wasn't a sock. There is a tool that enables extensive comparison of users contributions and I used that. My judgement was that the level of overlap was sufficiently high enough to be suspicious. Seriously, are you really suggesting that a user who quotes a wp policy in their first five edits and then discovers the reference desk within their first dozen hasn't been here before? That beggers belief - I had been here over 6 months before I discovered the reference desk existed. I again point out that the user was harrassing and stalking another user - clearly there was a history here that wasn't apparent from the user's contributions which again suggested that we were dealing with someone who had previously used another identity to edit and was now using a new name to get even. Spartaz 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• What tool did you use "that enables extensive comparison of users contributions and I used that" that is not checkuser?
• Regarding his policy quotation in the first five edits. If you are talking about this edit then note that Mostargue is quoting the policy quite incorrectly, something we can expect from a new user.
• If you think the user needed to be blocked on account of harassing, then you still need to compile evidence.
• In any case, I strongly suggest this case be taken to WP:ANI, where the community can come up with a concensus, and that Mostargue be temporarily unblocked so that he can defend himself.Bless sins 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the 3RR issue you have had a number of blocks for 3RR violations but in the last case I see that Eagle took into account that you were trying to discuss and unblocked you quite quickly. It seems that you therefore benefited from a similar approach and I can't quite see why you are castigating me for taking the same issue into consideration - unless of course you think Eagle was wrong and shouldn't have unblocked you. You are aware that 1300+ admins means 1300+ different approaches to the admin tasks? There is not and never will be a hard and fast rule on anything because the admin corps is absolutely incapable as a group of agreeing collectively on anything. The bottom line is that the admin who considers the report decides on the outcome and they use their best judgement in deciding where and when not to block. I'm less block happy than most so maybe another admin would have blocked when I gave a warning. Then again, I'm sure that many other admins would also have acted the same or roughly similar way. That's why we have an unblock system so that blocked users can ask for a second opinion of their block and sometimes the reviewing admin will unblock so the system does work to an extent.

In this case, the disruption to the project from the edit war was minimal as we are talking about a barely edited template that gets subst'ed - the edit war was clearly over because I blocked the sock-puppet and another regular editor to the template was cleatly not being disrupted by the warned editor's actions because they spoke up for them at AN3. Had the user been disrupting the work of other editors you can rest assured that I would have blocked them. Otherwise, I'm very reluctant to block any established editor who is contributing to the project. Spartaz 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my block and subsequent unblock by Eagle: I never violated 3rr. Infact, in the 24-hour period before I was blocked I had only made 2 reverts. In general, people aren't blocked for 1rr (making 2 reverts). However, in your case you didn't block someone for 3rr, for which people are generally blocked. If the decision is left entirely on admin on duty at that particular time, then the 3rr policy is quite unfair. For a strict admin in a bad mood will be less reluctant to give out a block than an admin who is more lenient and just happens to be in a good mood. Also it strikes me that you are claiming that some users are above the law (so to speak). Shouldn't[REDACTED] rules apply equally to everybody?Bless sins 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a discussion of Mostargue here. regarding the 3rr, I guess I will post something on WP:3rr's talk page.Bless sins 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks!

Yes, on second thought I removed it straight away as they seemed to have stopped, but one of them went to RPP . Phgao 08:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate it! I thought just letting them know first would be better, I've had another look at the article itself, and it does not really state its notability and thus I sent it to be speedied, failing that it could be a AfD candidate. Phgao 08:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at all of the 3RR posts and it seems some are very clear cut in that the user is actually vandalising, so it could be dealt with easier with a report to AIV instead of a long somewhat timeconsuming report (comparted to AIV) to 3RR. Phgao 08:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that's right as the onus is on the user reporting, not for an admin to decide for themselves and perhaps get blasted if it's not correct. It should be easy to see that it is a violation. Phgao 08:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OH and I did have popups but found it way way too annoying ;) Phgao 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello u blocked me for 24 hours for breaking 3RR rule. I agree i needed this punishment but i think u should also look the circumstances and reason behind it. KNM and others were deliberately ignoring the sources and information added and reverting. This is not content dispute but deliberate breaking of rules under pretext of ignornce. Please see the message i pasted in 3rr section and do needful.

(Stateofart 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

This is case of hypocricy of KNM and his friends of removing sourced information and reverting without even looking at sources. Despite request at his talk page and constant appeals thorugh edit summaries and presenting a SOURCE which he choosed to ignore and delete , , , sourced information along with others whom he hired for saving himself from 3RR ,

Earlier too despite many explainations and repeated requests by me to see source , , ,

KNM , ,

and his friends , , ,

chose not to click and read the source and read what they call as 'POV' was endorsed by national newspaper,Times Of India. Note that this source is here from past few weeks and still KNM/others are ignoring and reverting deliberately. Also note that kannada script in Rahul Dravid is unwarrented since he is not a kannadiga. That means Aishwarya Rai should also have Marathi script. Above all KNM and others guard the pages together and leave no option for an individual to break some[REDACTED] rules. KNM and others should be punished for their deliberate ignoring of sources and starting a edit war. (Stateofart 07:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

• 24 hours. Please don't bring your content dispute here. Spartaz 13:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Humbug???

I noticed that you use the caption "Humbug" for your talk page link. With all due respect, but I don't think this is funny, but more liking ridiculing editors who want to discuss something with you. Pls consider using another title that isn't a borderline case of WP:Civil. Best regards Gray62 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100

Sorry to bother you, but I happened to notice the report here. Since you were the original blocking administrator, it might be of interest/relevant to you. —LactoseTI 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)