Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:47, 15 December 2004

• ]

Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Navbox

This is a messageboard for all administrators. Its chief purpose is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Misplaced Pages may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Non-administrators are free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message!

Related pages:

• Meta-discussions about the board (what it's for, how to publicize it, etc) at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator's_noticeboard
• Issue of whether RfC sub-pages should be deleted, and if so how, at Misplaced Pages:Administrator's_noticeboard/RfC-VfD

Tasks

WP:CP

Help in housekeeping on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems is appreciated. -- Infrogmation 08:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what do we do about ones like Brazil for Christ Pentecostal Church? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And Marcellin Champagnat from . The article was rewritten and now the copyvio is in the edit history! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also see Ödön von Horváth which needs to be removed (by a developer no less) from the edit history. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help determining dificult cases is much appreciated. Work on shoveling out the obvious cases when appropriate,however, always needed to help keep the page at a managable size. -- Infrogmation 00:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:PUI

From WP:CU: Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images needs some serious attention from an administrator. The page lists images that are in some way problematic and has apparently not been attended to since late September. Thuresson 15:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has not been neglected so long, but does have a very large backlog of old entries. -- Infrogmation 00:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Double-blocking

What do you guys do to avoid blocking an already blocked IP? Do you check the log or what? I'd like to see a note on someone's user page if they're blocked, so I know I don't have to bother checking. ] 11:52, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I usually check the IP block list, but that's a bit of a pain. A warning + confirmation that the IP/user is already blocked would be pretty helpful. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I leave a message on the IP's talk page so that other admins following up don't have to waste the time checking. Still, since not everyone does that, the only way to be sure is to check the IP block list before blocking. SWAdair | Talk 03:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a new feature for MediaWiki could be an automatic symbol for blocked users. It could show up next to their name/IP in recent changes and have a sign on their user/talk pages that isn't part of the article (and thus not removable). violet/riga (t) 17:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like such a feature very much. It saves vandal hunters so much time. ] 09:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

IP addresses and sock puppets

CWS, Netoholic, Viriditas and TBSDY (myself) have all been in discussion about the whole sockpuppet to IP address issue. Personally, I've noticed suspicious edits on articles by anons where users have been blocked for 24 hours. Some sort of verification of the user's past IP addresses and matching them to the user might be helpful. Except that auto-blocking comes in useful here... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask somebody this, and I figure you may know: is there any way for an admin to view the last active IP of a non-anon user? Many thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 23:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, only a system administrator (Tim Starling comes to mind) can find that out. -- Netoholic @ 00:38, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CWS, why do you need to know? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In reading recent accusations of sockpupperty and watching recent vandals rotating usernames, it seemed to me that the ability to cross-reference IP addresses would render the former moot, and the latter somewhat easier to deal with. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tell me about it. I said the same to Viriditas! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you think its worth it for us to propose that administrators get the ability to see the source IP address of an edit, in addition to the author? I can't think of any major security issues, especially if it's only admin that can see them. -- ClockworkSoul 22:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely! That would solve many sock-puppet issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to write survey, or shall I? :) -- ClockworkSoul 22:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such a proposal will not currently solve any sock-puppet issues if the users in question are editing from a secure browser (java disabled) and using an anon proxy. IIRC (and I could be mistaken), the only way to solve this problem is to ban open proxies. Many IRC servers have implemented this solution, but I believe there are ways around it, depending on the type of proxy. --Viriditas 22:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't entirely eliminate sockpuppetry, but it would cut it down somewhat, and would make the lives of us vandal-hunters somewhat easier. It's also a bonus that the software could support such a change with a near-trivial amount of effort. I agree that your proposal, Viriditas, would go alot farther, but is also a grander undertaking. -- ClockworkSoul 23:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• If people with a free mail service need to contact an admin to sign up, it's likely they won't go through the effort causing us to lose valuable editors. I'd like to see some better vandal and trouble user logging, perhaps added to their user page so vandal hunters can easily check an IP's or user's past. Mandatory sign up isn't a problem, as long as we don't make verification neccesary. ] 14:44, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Question: Why do you need to spy on users through the IP addresses? Contributions should be judged on what they are, not who wrote them. Sock puppets are annoying, yes, but there's nothing that can be done about them without massive changes to Misplaced Pages (for ex., requiring proof of identification before one could create an account, and blocking anon. users) that wouldn't be popular. I'm against the Big Brother type activity. If someone's contributions are so one-sided that he's an obvious sock puppet, then delete/demote them on POV grounds rather than surmised identity. EventHorizon 05:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welllll'... normally I would have agreed with you on this one. But lately we've been blocking for violation of the 3RR. We've been seeing many similar edits on the articles we've blocked for, and the first thing a lot of admins thinks is that those edits come from blocked editors. So it would clear up a lot of issues if we could see the IP addresses used of editors. Mind you, from what I understand its a bit of a moot point because the autoblock automatically blocks those IP addresses anyway... Ta bu shi da yu 20:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even though seeing an editors IP may seem trivial (considering developer people can do it no problem), I fear that the seeing a editors IP would be a power abused by admins. It is always nice to know something other people don't, eh? Considering that admins have been abusing blocking policy regarding 3RR (a policy DISASTER), not a good idea to give them more "responsibility". A temptation to much to resist. Sock puppets are not illegal per se. Abusing them to circumvent policy is.

The only way I could support admins seeing an editors IP would be if 3 lay (non-admin) editors, approved that course of action beforehand. As has been stated, admins have more responsibility but authority lies with the wikipedia community. I do not trust admins, sorry.

It does seem to be a moot point, considering the autoblock. Seeing a "rogue editors" IP, which can be changed easily, will solve very, very little. Misplaced Pages has not been damaged by admins inability to see an editors IP. Mrfixter 23:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, fair enough these are your views. However, where have admins violated the 3RR? Also, why do you think we have to block because of repeated violations? Well, because the point is that people are reverting and not even bothering to discuss their changes. Then when we block because of it they get all pissed off. Well, I say tough. If they had been making edits in good faith they would have taken their comments to talk to work on. And they would have tried to gain consensus. Reverting in the manner they do is bullying, plain and simple. Why? Because they are trying to impose their own POV on people. Take for instance CheeseDreams. She reverted and lost at least three changes on Cultural and historical background of Jesus and along with other editors has forced the protection of that page. Do you think that is fair? I don't. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A strategy for identifying and blocking vandals

Discretion and skill are needed in interpreting the IP numbers with a view to sock identification. I'm currently suffering intermittently from an IP block that was applied to my ISP's http proxy legitimately because of a vandal who is sharing the same proxy. There's nothing much we can do about that; it doesn't render editing impossible (but this is also true for the vandal).

One way to move forward may be to permit editing only by logged-in users. This would mean that a vandal can be blocked by username. Vandals attempt would get around the block by storing up usernames prior to vandalism and switching to an unblocked username when required. However this strategy could be defeated by recording the IP number under which each username is registered and then raising an auto listing (on some Special page) of users performing recent edits using the same IP number as banned users. This would provide a watchlist of candidates to watch for further vandalism.

It would also mean that crude and often ineffective bans on IP numbers, such as the one I'm suffering, would not be necessary. --] 14:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Banning all anons is anti-wiki and frankly extremely infuriating to editors who don't want to register and subsequently log in all the time. But, I think that admins ought to have the developer power of viewing IPs. Unlike what Event Horizon said, this isn't a "big brother" tactic - Misplaced Pages is not a government or a public place, it's run by Jimmy Wales and the Foundation and so on, and the owners of websites can view the IPs of their visitors anyway. In Misplaced Pages's case, developers already have that power as well. The only difference here is giving that status to appointed admins. Andre (talk) 06:20, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I have an account but I accept cookies from Misplaced Pages and have my preferences set to login automatically. I would accept a policy that might not appeal to wiki-purists if it meant that I did not occasionally find myself locked out of Misplaced Pages because of something somebody else did using the same web proxy I use. --] 21:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changing username

Could one or more admins have a look at Misplaced Pages:Changing username. As far as I can see, no request has been fulfilled since 14 October so there's quite a backlog. Thanks. jguk 13:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately you need a developer to do that. Andre (talk) 19:45, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Any ideas of how to get hold of one (or more)? jguk 20:13, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

m:Developer has a listing, but fair warning: they're overworked, and chorese like changing usernames are (except in unusual cases) low-priority compared to working on Mediawiki. Isomorphic 20:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Links to Wiktionary

Hi, all, there's a proposal (and a template) at Misplaced Pages:Soft redirect for handling pages that ought to be links to Wiktionary. I'd like to start using this, which looks good to me, but I'm not sure it's really official yet; can we get some more comment there so we can make this formal? (And my apologies if it already is, and I was just clueless - the page doesn't sound like it, and I hadn't heard about it until very recently.) Noel (talk) 17:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a good policy for topics with no encyclopedic potential. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:00, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Three revert rule

I ask here because I think it may be the best way of getting a quick feel for the consensus on a recent change. Recently the three revert rule was made enforceable. Now the case of a simple revert is easy to identify and most edits which are termed "reverts" fall into this category: a diff between two different versions of the text of a page or section shows that they are identical, with all intermediate changes reverted.

More recently I have noticed users deleting the added text of other users selectively. This is slightly more difficult to recognise because a diff between two versions isn't identical. What shows up however is that if two versions are compared, added text in intermediate changes is selectively deleted. So for instance in one example the first user made a cosmetic edit, correcting the spelling of a single word, and a second user made a more substantial edit in which text was added. A third user then came along and performed an edit to delete all of the added text of the second user while retaining the cosmetic edit of the first, and also tweaked the heading of a section. The effect was to remove the added text of the second user.

This becomes a question because the third user had very shortly before performed two reverts on the same page, and the third edit could be seen as an attempt to evade the three revert rule.

I'd like to open the question up. Is this kind of edit covered by existing policy or practise? Does it qualify in this case as a third revert? --] 02:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that a revert which includes minor changes (such as spelling changes and capitalisation) is still a revert. The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent revert wars, and clearly spelling changes don't make much difference to most such wars. I think a warning might be a sufficient rebuff for a first offence.-gadfium (talk) 03:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me too. The advantage of having people decide rather than machines is we can see through attempts to works the system. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. ] 11:36, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Missing Redirects project

For those who haven't run across this before, Nickj has created a really cool tool that runs across the database and collects information from piped links, using it to suggest additional redirects. (More about this project here, with prior discussion here.)

It has created a lengthy list of suggestions. To avoid making bogus links, the process is human-mediated. Nick has set it up so it only takes two clicks to create each one, so there's no work involved. You just sit and click if you think it's a good link. The lists are broken up into blocks of 5 suggestions, so that they are not overwhelming, and so that people can do as much or as little as they like. Now we need helpers. Where is the best place to publicize this project? Noel (talk) 13:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• To me the community portal or note on RC seems like good places to start. ] 13:56, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus

Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC on the article? That doesn't solve the immediate problem, though. If she refuses to take it to the talk and keeps reverting, I suggest you request another admin protect the page. Johnleemk | Talk 14:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) P.S. She's also involved in an arbitration case right now, so you may want to add evidence there if she doesn't sufficiently discuss major rewrites.

And yet, you know, much of what she is adding really needs to be there. The identity or near identity of Jesus with other Mediterranean life-death-rebirth deities is a key counter-argument in this historicy debate. I note that after the latest revert, Horus and the other Egyptians get only a passing mention and Adonis/Tammuz ("Adonai", if you prefer) gets no mention at all. These comparisons have been around since at least the end of the 19th century and have a perfectly respectable literature behind them (see James Frazer's The Golden Bough, for instance). All this just to suggest that you need to be careful that your own Christian POV is not colouring your judgement here. CheeseDreams may be going about it the wrong way, but she does have a valid arguement to add to the article and could say that she is just being bold. I would suggest the RFC route, but be prepared to compromise to allow perectly valid content in the article. Filiocht 15:04, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Aloha, Filiocht. While I do agree with many of your points (and in fact agree with CheeseDreams) James Frazer is no longer considered to be as respectable as he once was, due to recent progress made in Anthropology. As far as myths are concerned, it might be better to cite the primary sources that Frazer used, although in most cases, I'm sure that citing Frazer is just fine. I did not revert CheeseDreams because of content alone. I reverted her because she is unable to work well and collaborate with others. She needs to work towards a compromise on the discussion page and she needs to stop making wholesale replacements of articles without discussion. --Viriditas | Talk 23:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I cited Frazer specifically to show that these are not new ideas, but there is, of course, a lot of work that is more recent and better Anthropology that could be cited. Reverting people because they are 'unable to work well and collaborate with others' seems to me a bit of a slippery slope, after all, who defines 'working well'? Surely it would be better to edit relevant material than to revert it? Filiocht 08:56, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clear. What I was trying to say (and failed) was that even though I agreed with the content CheeseDreams had added, I reverted her changes since her edits amounted to a wholesale replacement of the entire article with her own version, in effect, negating the collaborative efforts of all the editors that were working on the article. Have a look for yourself:. Also, have a look at the talk page. The consensus on the talk page is that CheeseDreams has replaced the original article with a duplicate of a different article she personally authored (Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism). Does that make more sense? I absolutely agree that it would be better to edit relevant material, however, since CheeseDreams has replaced the entire article with her version (essentially a duplicate of a different article), the only recourse is reversion. Let me know if I have cleared this point up or not. FWIW, I am a complete outsider on this debate and I have no interest in the outcome of either side. --Viriditas | Talk 12:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that these things should be added. However, my complaint is not the content, it is the way the content is being added. What I've maintained all along is that she needs to discuss major edits and structural changes before doing them. Some of the changes have been quite major structural changes. See . There are whole sections with no content. Is this acceptable? I do understand that my Christianity may colour my worldview (in fact, it does), but in this case c'mon... check out what happened to the page before I unprotected it! Does this look like a well written, reasonable article? I mean, it has (count 'em) six cleanup, attention, etc tags. Two of them are invalid merge tags. Then there is a heading that says "Original article before edit started" - wtf? In the first section there are 13 stub-sections/empty sections. Not only this, but she just slapped her brand new article on top of the old article! Does that seem fair or even reasonable?! And yet: little or no discussion on the talk page about the tags or the changes that are being made. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, Slrubenstein makes a good argument for moving most of the proposed changes by CheeseDreams to Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism. I don't particularly like that title, but I have to agree with Slrubenstein: CheeseDreams is editing the wrong article. --Viriditas | Talk 23:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't been paying attention - I wrote almost 100% of Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism as well. The content on Historicity of Jesus in the syncretism section is just a summary of it (that I wrote by contracting a duplicate of the article). There is no meaning to merging the content. Its the same. One is a summary of the other. CheeseDreams 01:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite willing to admit that I'm wrong. Are you? Your summary is 11 paragraphs long. I'm sure if you tightened it up to 5 paragraphs or so, the editors would greatly appreciate your efforts. Slrubenstein has a valid point about your alleged "hijacking" of the article. Perhaps if you treated other editors with respect and civility, and showed a willingness to compromise, you wouldn't find yourself in so much trouble. Plus, you are evading your current block by posting under another name/IP (see history "Cheese dreams"). --Viriditas | Talk 01:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleting RFCs

I noticed that several RFCs were listed in CAT:CSD, namely Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/jguk and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Theresa knott. While I understand that the RFC did not receive the required number of certifications within the time period, I cannot find the policy that states that these become speedy deletion candidates. In fact, I had a recent discussion with User:Ta bu shi da yu when several other users had a consensus that RFCs should almost never be deleted. I thought I'd bring this to the AN to see what everyone else thought. If there is a formal policy in place, let me know. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:55, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

There was a recent extensive discussion, at Misplaced Pages:Administrator's_noticeboard/RfC-VfD. Noel (talk) 19:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not too difficult to find the policy - it's the first thing on each RfC page on a sysop/user (and also noted clearly on the main RfC page):) . It says:

"In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop/user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: XXX (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: XXX (UTC)." jguk 20:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems like this topic is currently in dispute at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment#Deleting uncertified RFCs. However, because this is a delicate issue and I understand that the current policy is to delete these pages, I will go ahead and delete your RFC page; I will ask Theresa on her page if she wishes her RFC page to be deleted (she may not as it is currently part of the RFC/RFA discussion involving User:CheeseDreams). Obviously, any changes made to wikipedia policy would only affect RFCs in the future, and not the ones on CSD right now. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:16, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams removed my statement of complaint in ArbCom case against her

See ! I am now a direct participant in this arbcom case, and she has removed my statement of complaint. I have put back my statement. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IIRC you can file a separate request for arbitration. The arbitrators can then vote as to whether to merge these cases. I think this points more to holes in our arbitration policy than any wrongdoing of CheeseDreams'. Johnleemk | Talk 10:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Really? Damn. So she was right and I was wrong. OK, I'll do this. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you still can apply for a temp injunction, though. Actually one proposed decision already being voted on is to block her for 90 days for removing your request, so I wouldn't say you were totally wrong just yet. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've already stated on the talk page of the the proposed decision that that is totally absurd. That 90 day ban on that matter needs to be removed. I notice that I got a proposed 30 day ban for also removing a statement (which I didn't realise I did - I noticed the 30 day ban after I read the decision). Two things here: assume good faith needs to be applied equally. It was only after Ambi and Jayjg noticed the ban and mentioned it on the talk page that Fred voted against it. And yet, CheeseDreams did the same thing for the same reason and she's getting a 90 day ban? So much for the ArbCom being seen as neutral and fair. Secondly, if I did the same wrong doing as CheeseDreams, why the heck am I getting a lesser ban? Exactly how is that fair? That's ridiculous, and I'm not happy about it. Now we've got a possible cloud over the arbitration as CheeseDreams may say that the arbitrators are being unfair. And she'd have a point. Great. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accusation of breaking the revert rule against Sam Spade

I've been provided with the following evidence against Sam Spade. Since I blocked Adraeus for breaking 3RR on the same article, I should be consistent, but this is a little less clear as I'd like it to be. Can someone confirm I'd be correct in blocking Sam based on this evidence?

The following is an edited version of an email I received. (It originally spoke of a 2RR based on the voluntary injuction I suggested).

Sam Spade has broken the 3 revert rule for the Atheism article a number of times now. He insists on capitalizing all instances of "god" against all consensus. For the last 2.5 days now Sam repeatedly replaces any subsitute phrases (diety/dieties) entered in the article as attempts to compromise. He thinks that by re-editing the phrases he finds offensive and not actually reverting, he is able to side-step the 2/3rr at the Atheism article. You should also be aware that this particular point has historically been an issue for Sam, and the subject of a past RfC against his actions in promoting it, and so he can be considered already warned. We've tried reasoning with him, but Sam still insists on promoting his own POV on this point, and we feel that he's been given more than enough slack, and now he's crossed the line. If Adraeus' actions resulted in 24 hr ban, Sam's certainly qualify as well. Please take action to reign in Sam.

4: 22:05, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (God or gods) 21:22, 14 Dec 2004 81.179.230.27 (Changed to 'Deities' again. The whole point is to take away from the focus of the christian god to the more general term.) 21:11, 14 Dec 2004 Ambush Commander (Let's compromise. God and Deities (Gods redirects to Deity anyway)) 18:52, 14 Dec 2004 81.179.230.27 (Deities replacing god again.)

3: 17:23, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (various, mainly God or gods) 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 Titanium Dragon ("God or gods" to "gods" or "deities", save in first occurance to preserve link to God entry (otherwise is redundant, "omni" God is a god by definition); "policies" changed to "policy" (grammar))

2: 12:49, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (merger of my version w an appropriate contribution by andreas) 12:39, 14 Dec 2004 129.59.26.46 (Changed a couple of references to "God or gods" to "gods" or "deities")

1: 12:23, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (repair) 11:39, 14 Dec 2004 Adraeus (rv. BM's non-consensus-based POV edits)

-- ] 09:31, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Seems like grounds for blocking to me, but I wouldn't block just yet. Let's see what others think. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, we have to apply the rules consistently. Filiocht 10:22, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input, I've put him on a 24 hour block. ] 10:29, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Though I like Sam, I agree that this is the right course of action. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I too like Sam. Sam has mailed a complaint about this blocking to the email list. I'm not sure about it. I would feel a lot happier if a specific warning had been given "Trying to get around the 3RR like this is liable to get you blocked anyway" or some such thing. Having said that - I don't feel strongly enough about it to undo the block at the moment. (I'll wait and see what Sam says on the mailing list). Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • If there are problems with stuff agreed here, they should be discussed here, and not on the mailing list. Not all of us have access to the mailing list, or would even want to. Filiocht 13:28, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Mailing lists if you want to check this. I think there's no reason why it shouldn't be discussed there. There's numerous discussions there also duplicated on WP talk pages. ] 13:40, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, right now I don't have access to the mailing list. But I'm prepared to give my 2 cents and someone can relay it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to relay anything you say - but Sam can still read this page - he just can't edit it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake)

It's true that not all of us have access to the mailing list - but that is by choice. One person does not, at this moment, have access to this page. The only place Sam can discuss this block is on the mailing list. So I will discuss it there. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Well, for the record, it doesn't look to me like Sam broke the 3 revert rule, strictly speaking. I think he should have been warned and that the matter should have been deliberated on prior to a decision to tempban. AndyL 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For those not reading the email list Sam has stated that he was not reverting " AFAIK I made 2 reverts in a 24hr period, not 4" I've been looking at the edits and I'm not convinced that Sam was deliberately trying to get around the 3RR. I'm going to investigate further, but at this moment I'm tempted to lift the block. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam takes pain to adhere to policy by the letter (rather than by the spirit), and it is likely that he made a third revert within seconds of the expiry of a 24h period. It is also justified to apply sanctions legalistically, therefore, but obivously if it is not clear that he has broken the 3RR, the block should be lifted. otoh, a 24h block is not draconic, and he can obviously still make uncontroversial contributions anonymously. dab (ᛏ) 15:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam's email

I wrote

"Since it was clear that the god --> God etcs
were likely to be contentious, why didn't you make the substantive
edits without them?  then you could have gone back tomorrow and tried
again or whatever?"

He replied

"Actually, I thought I was obeying MGM's voluntary injunction, and acting in an  
mmaculate manner. I had absolutely no clue whatsoever that the edits I was making
could be considered reverts by anyone."

IMO he should have been warned first. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I cannot see he has technically broken the 3RR, and I support his unblocking (not that this will quench the edit war, but there you are). dab (ᛏ) 15:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock him. I do not think that mgm acted maliciosly or that the blocking was any kind of abuse of admin powers. However this is a difficult one, and since there was no warning, I don't think it was fair to block Sam Spade. Having said that, i don't want anyone to think that I am endorsing Sam's edits, and I would caution Sam to strive to stay within the spirit of the rules as well as the letter of them. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree of course that MGM's block was not malicious. It is a difficult case, and after due warning, the block might have been appropriate. I am afraid there is no patent remedy against this type of edit war other than the excruciating way of RFC and arbitration. dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

w00t!

I am very happy that I was unblocked, esp. since I had decided that if I wasn't I should give up editing here, and that would have sucked. I have given up editing atheism, at least for the near future. I don't plan to begin a RfC against MGM, and agree the block was not malicious, but I would like an apology, esp. since it upset me so much, and came as a severe shock. Anyways... God bless you, everyone! :D

] 16:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

B-Movie Bandit?

62.16.202.204 (contribs) seems to fit the profile for the B-Movie Bandit. Can anyone confirm or deny? --Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The B-Movie Bandit specialised in substubs. This anon seems to be creating normal stubs/articles. I don't see anything wrong. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe they upgraded the bot? Also, the articles aren't listed as stubs. Do you think these articles (like Sarah & Emma Smith) could or should be nominated for VfD? --Viriditas | Talk 13:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you just add stub tags and see where they go before suggesting VfD? 131.211.210.157 13:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's one possibility. --Viriditas | Talk 13:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only reason we're even discussing this is because they could be edits of the B-Movie Bandit. This hypothesis has not been proven, and even so, why should we judge articles by who authored them instead of their content? If these articles were created by, say, TBSDY, nobody would give them a second thought. Let's just mark them as stubs and let this anon be. As long as the articles conform to our guidelines and policies and aren't messy substubs, it doesn't matter who wrote them. Johnleemk | Talk 13:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done, thanks for clearing that up for me. --Viriditas | Talk 13:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)