Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Propose Topic Ban

For User: Wittsun, on all articles and edits relating to race, ethnicity, and religion. Per [1] and [2].

Supports and opposes can go below. Also feel free to comment on either of the two original threads, if you wish. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - having seen the article Six Families of Berlin, which Wittsun deprodded, it is clear that Wittsun holds extremist views on this subject matter. The page was an anti-Lebanese racist hoax/synthesis, and it is clear that Wittsun's views show that he cannot edit impartially on the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Claritas (talk • contribs) 22.39, today

How so? Being only one of two German speakers on that thread, I was able to evaluate the referenced sources for notability. As for stonemason89's partisan fixation to get me banned, I encourage others to evaluate his 'contributions' such as the supposed widespread misuse of the metaphor 'black hole'[3] and his close following of the 'redneck shop'[4]]--Wittsun (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles have been accepted by the Did You Know editorial team as legitimate, and were even featured on the main page, so you're going to have a very hard time getting people to agree with your statement. Also, simply creating an article about a particular topic, as long as the topic is notable and appropriate for an encyclopedia (unlike, for example, the aforementioned Six Families of Berlin), is not in an of itself a reason to suspect bias. If everyone on Wikipedia was afraid to write or contribute to articles about certain topics because they thought other people would judge them for it, then Wikipedia's growth and comprehensiveness would be greatly harmed. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles are borderline conspiracy theory and seem to have temporarily escaped the attention WP:ZEAL editors such as the ones piping up here for a topic ban. Unfortunately better material has been deleted or so mangled as to be hardly understandable.--Wittsun (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory"? Hardly. Your comments about "racism" being a code word of the Frankfurt School, however, are conspiracy theories. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban -- 6 months, say? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as Stonemason89 is an activist who himself is biased when it comes to racial issues.--Wittsun (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Since when is being anti-racist being biased? In my opinion, you're lucky this isn't a full ban. Support per Stonemason's reasons. (By the way, I really think this dispute belongs as ANI instead of the main noticeboard.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Being 'anti'-anything for ideological reasons is an admission of bias. By the looks of things admins have shown more tolerance towards your presence here than you show others.--Wittsun (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • First of all, I think it's more than a little ironic that someone who defends Podblanc would accuse other people of not showing "tolerance". Second of all, Wikipedia has a very definite policy regarding WP: FRINGE views, as opposed to mainstream ones; white nationalism is definitely the former, while being opposed to racism is generally regarded as the latter. You may think that's unfair, but it's how Wikipedia operates. WP: NPOV means that we try to avoid adding our own bias to articles, but it does not mean that we have to give FRINGE viewpoints the same amount of weight as mainstream ones. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • For someone who relies on a vast amount of FRINGE terminology to make himself remotely understood, I'd say this is a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'[5] -- another metaphor that apparently has been overlooked by your eagle eye for 'anti-racist' reinterpretation.--Wittsun (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't use "fringe" terminology. I don't know what you're talking about. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban related to race and ethnicity only. There doesn't seem to be an issue in regards to religion. -Oescp (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a heavy-handed editor yourself[6] with a history of over-involvement in ethnic disputes this vote is hardly surprising.--Wittsun (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at Oescp's comment on Spylab's talk page, it appears as though he conducted himself civilly. He didn't attack Spylab, he merely asked Spylab about some of the latter's edits, which Oescp didn't understand the rationale for. Nothing wrong with that. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, Wittsun is right. How rude of me to ask someone to elaborate on a particular edit. That's completely unacceptable, but in the future I promise not to engage in such heavy handed editing. -Oescp (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds like a great New Year's resolution. Another one of your 'helpful' NPOV edits, here:[7]--Wittsun (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Again, Oescp did nothing wrong; racially motivated crimes and reverse discrimination are two different topics. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While I support a topic ban as a minimum, why aren't we talking about an indef block? An editor with a history of making unacceptable edits to push their political views has no place in Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban (six months as per Sarek is ok). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Who was it that said "Many laws make bad men, as bad men make many laws"? -- Answer: Walter Savage Landor--Wittsun (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  I didn't know that apothegm; personally, however, I'm more for quid leges sine moribus vanae proficiunt?, as Horace put it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  I prefer Tacitus myself: corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.--Wittsun (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - seems excessive, only one block for 24 hours, nothing here warrants such a punishment. Requests for a full ban are laughable. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Leland Yee new editors scared away

So two new editors try to improve Leland Yee's article and what do editors do? Threaten them, report them and then scare them off. Is this really appropriate conduct for an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.148.164 (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is here. One problem I just discovered is a lot of close paraphrase - I removed 'most notably' from a paragraph and then discovered that it had been copied from the newspaper source (which is clearly a press release). Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

He's referring to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Leland_Yee. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalk and harass Ricky81682 much? –MuZemike 02:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

Could someone please take a look at this on AN/I and do whatever closing out and implementation seems appropriate? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the related RfC here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why it seems to be a problem getting an admin to deal with this. Is there a problem I should know abour? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comments there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I just cleared a sizeable backlog there. IT's quietened down now, but more admin eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Block review

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I've blocked Rodhullandemu for 24 hours. It's been suggested that because he's an admin, I should get a second opinion. While I don't think that's really true - why get a second opinion for blocking an admin, and not get one for blocking any other established editor? - I'm always open to feedback, so I'll bring it here.

Quick history:

• Rod and Malleus were part of an argument at Wikipedia:BN#Asking for adminship back.
• Rod told Malleus to stop arguing at BN, and take it somewhere else.
• Rod went to Malleus's talk page, and rather pompously repeated the same. [8]
• It may come as a surprise to some of you that Malleus doesn't like admins coming and being pompous on his talk page.
• For the next few hours, Malleus, Rod, and some kibitzers traded childish insults.
• It's worth noting that Malleus did not post to BN again.
• Rod told Malleus that he was "less important to me than the occasional dogshit on my shoe". [9]
• Malleus told Rod basically the same thing. [10]
• Rod blocked Malleus for 31 hours for personal attacks.
• I blocked Rod for 24 hours for a personal attack.
• Moni3 unblocked Malleus.
• I asked Rod to assure me he wouldn't go back to Malleus' page, and I would do the same. He wouldn't so I didn't unblock. There's an unblock template up there now.

To be clear, I would not have blocked Rod if he hadn't blocked Malleus. Malleus is a big boy, can take care of himself, and was being rude too. But it is completely unacceptable to block someone you're arguing with, especially for "personal attacks" on yourself, especially when you just called him a name on his own talk page. If Rod truly believes that Malleus should have been blocked for "personal attacks", I don't see how he can believe that he isn't guilty of the same. If he doesn't believe that, then I suppose I could change my block rationale to "grossly inapproriate use of admin tools".

On Rod's talk page, Rod is saying I should not have blocked him because he's an admin. On the contrary, I think admins should actually be held to the same, if not a higher, standard. He's also saying he should have been given a warning (really? It's not obvious you don't call someone dogshit, and then block them when they dare to answer back?), and that I've further insulted him by not placing a template on his talk page (??).

I welcome a couple of things:

• Some feedback on the block.
• Some feedback on my opinion in the extreme inappropriateness of the use of admin tools against someone you're arguing with, on their own talk page, right after you call them dogshit.
• Some feedback on whether this misuse of the tools is worth an RFC/U or recall attempt.

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I unblocked Malleus. I don't have an opinion on the block. I wouldn't have blocked Rodhullandemu, just because I don't like to block other editors. But I do agree with Tony1's suggestion that Rodhullandemu should go through a admin review. First, to come to a user's page and patronize him as an admin is abhorrent. To continue to bait the user, to attempt to silence him for using valid (albeit profane) arguments is simply stupid. It has no basis in any effective administrative duties. It's petty and childish. To block the person with whom you're arguing is astonishingly, breathtakingly abusive. Rodhullandemu does not seem to grasp these cause and effect relationships per the unblock requests and exchanges with Floquenbeam on his talk page. Stunningly, he uses the argument that he writes GAs or something. I don't get that. Does Malleus then have the right to be more abusive or ...gosh, I have no idea... something, because he's written over 20 FAs?? That's just weird. --Moni3 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable block to me. Welcome to the club of those who have blocked an admin, Floquenbeam. Though I imagine you'll soon also be member to those who have had their blocks of an admin overturned before it expires. It's pretty rare that these things stick, valid as they may (or may not) be. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  FWIW, I just declined the unblock request, and he stated that that was unacceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• The argument at Malleus' talkpage was escalating and the blocks certainly put a stop to it. However, it cannot be acceptable for an admin to use their tools in an argument against their opponent. Given Rod's volume of work on the encyclopedia, I can only assume that he lost his cool and didn't think through the ramifications of using his tools in such circumstances. His subsequent comments on his talkpage show he is still missing that point. Since the block is preventative, not punitive, as soon as he regains his composure and realises that he crossed a bright line, he should be unblocked. I don't feel that there's any pattern of tool abuse here to require any further action. --RexxS (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam acted appropriately in this situation. Rod has a long pattern of good work both as an editor and as an administrator. However, current consensus is greatly opposed to blocks by involved administrators. Thus, the act of blocking by Rod was questionable. Hopefully this issue can be resolved without hard feelings by any parties. Rod disengaging totally from the situation, while difficult, is the quickest route to such a non-negative resolution. Lewis Windsor (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good Block You do NOT use your admin tools to win an argument. Let the dust settle and cooler heads prevail. I think we'll see one red-faced admin tomorrow. N419BH 05:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Each of the users who are involved in this have something to worry about.
  • Rod: Rod was involved in the content dispute, engaged in grossly inappropriate commentary, and was responded to with the same kind of commentary. Rod was not in a position where he was permitted to use his tools (as they do not exist for that purpose), but blocked Malleus anyway for attacks that were made within half hour of the block being applied. Basic principle that administrators are expected to refrain from issuing (or modifying) blocks in response to personal attacks directed at themselves (especially where there is a level of involvement in the dispute).
  • Flo: It appears Floquenbeam responded to this block by blocking Rod. The stated reason in the log was personal attacks/harassment (that were made some 2 hours ago), as well as "Rod is going to have a hard time unblocking Malleus; I've blocked him for 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)". Blocking an administrator for refusing to unblock someone (or because they blocked someone inappropriately) is not what the blocking tool exists for. If it was to prevent Rod from going to Malleus' talk page, and it would have been applied irrespective of the incidents here, then fine. However, Flo stated this block would not have been applied had Malleus not been blocked. This is problematic.
  • Moni3/Courcelles: Meanwhile, Moni3 unblocked Malleus with the log reason "Oh for Pete's sake". Courcelles was going to unblock Malleus also. This was after both admins could see that Rod was blocked. No unblock request was made and it was unlikely that an assurance would be made that such rhetoric would not continue. It is unlikely that any other editor in those circumstances would have been unblocked in the same fashion, even if the block was inappropriate. Is this a situation where a couple of admins were enforcing their own views about civility blocks? Possibly. It would have been appropriate to unblock Malleus had Rod not been blocked; it would have been appropriate to unblock Malleus if Rod was also unblocked. However, the appropriateness of unblocking any single party (alone) in the circumstances is more than just questionable - it is problematic.
  • Conclusion: The person who has the most to lose (or has a greater chance of losing it) is Rod for multiple issues, but even that has been somewhat pacified by the act of keeping him blocked while unblocking the other party. Frankly, either way, based on what actually has happened here, I think all of you involved in the incident have at least something to worry about either in your use (or attempted use) of tools, your judgement, or in your conduct. These issues are certainly likely to crop up when (or if) it goes to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ncmv, a clarification: I didn't block him for blocking Malleus, I blocked him for a personal attack because he blocked Malleus for one. A subtle but important distinction, IMHO. In other words, I would have been perfectly willing to overlook his violation of WP:NPA if he hadn't blocked Malleus, because both of them were acting foolish. But I was no longer willing to overlook this violation of policy after he blocked Malleus for having the audacity to talk back to an admin when insulted. Also, I don't understand this "two hours ago" comment; he was blocked within 10 minutes of making the comment. And finally, I was perfectly willing to unblock Rod if he would agree to stay away from Malleus' talk page; he was unwilling to agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If he inappropriately blocked someone for NPA (which he did), the block should have been lifted and you should have opened the dispute regarding his conduct here. Instead, you took matters into your own hands and blocked him (as a tit for tat as if this is a war or something). Your judgement was seriously flawed and had a much more chilling effect than any block on Malleus could ever have. You say you blocked him for NPA, yet you sat on your hands and refused to unblock based on technicalities. If Malleus was unblocked without any unblock request or assurance, be it by Moni3 or anyone else, I don't see how you could reasonably believe that the scales were being balanced by keeping him blocked. I'm not going to merely glare at Rod's poor judgement and ignore the other serious problems here (due to an overreliance on the incomplete picture you provided at the outlook of this review); it shouldn't have taken Wehwalt to approach you to unblock - you should have done it yourself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Cliques abusing their admin powers for their friends? Unpossible. Q ^{T C} 07:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Malleus was acting like a fool. However Rodhullandemu acted like a much bigger fool. I don't particularly have a problem with the block of Rodhullandemu - I see he's now stomped off with a big dramatic retirement announcement. As is always the case with editors who make big dramatic retirement announcements, the project is better off without him. Problem solved, nothing more to do here. Friday (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block: I haven't looked at the specifics of this interaction, but I understand there were personal attacks flying back and forth and Rod should have simply the more mature of the two and taken the issues to AN/I rather than responding with personal attacks of his own and then abusing his admin tools to "win" an argument. The block should remain until Rod has calmed down and recognises that blocking someone for personal attacks against himself, while making personal attacks of his own, is a gross misuse of the admin tools. Since this is an isolated incident I don't feel that this alone will warrant admin recall, but Rod needs to appreciate that a 24-hour block is the least of his worries: the way he treated the tools could cause the community to lose faith in him, and the longer he takes to accept that he was in the wrong and promises to use the tools in a responsible way, the more likely that is. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I hardly see how he is going to accept anything when he's declared that he has retired, presumably as a result of this block (or its handling). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    Clearly he's not ready to do so at the moment; I suspect he will quickly regret declaring himself "retired" and apologise profusely, promise not to do it again, etc. In which case fine, give Rod a second chance if he promises not to abuse the tools again. If he sticks to his "retirement", then good luck to him; we certainly don't need admins who abuse their tools to fight with other editors and then throw a strop about it when blocked for blatant misuse of the admin tools he promised to use responsibly. I would say give him a few days to cool off and acknowledge his own fault; if he doesn't, perhaps admin recall will be necessary. Just my opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    The point that is being missed in all of this is that the method by which we decide whether administrators should be desysopped or not, based on their tool-use, is well-established - those methods have never included blocking. As for incivility, editors and admins are on equal playing ground...which still leaves the question unanswered - why is one editor being unblocked without any requests while the admin is being still blocked despite making a request earlier? Because "he started it"? Or has he shown a tendency to reblock the editor even after the editor was unblocked? Has the community forgotten the doctrine of good faith or is it trying to signal that he was trying to hurt the project? He had every opportunity to wheel war so that he could become unblocked too; he did not take this bait that was dangled in front of him. Instead, he expected the community to respond to his unblock request by unblocking him, given that Malleus was also unblocked (for that matter, without any on-wiki unblock request or assurance of any sort); the administrators involved failed to meet this expectation. I cannot in good conscience ignore these facts. The serious issues in judgement should have been addressed through normal methods; not childish insult trades and childish block/unblock wars. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    "Bait that was dangled in front of him"? That's completely ridiculous, and insulting. It does, however, save me some time, as I no longer see any value in discussing this with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Let's see: Admin compares editor to dogshit on editor's own talk page. Editor responds, effectively saying "no, you're dogshit." Admin blocks editor for "personal attack" (comparing him to dogshit). Admin retires in a huff when blocked for his ridiculous behavior. Seems like it was handled fine by all concerned except the admin.Bali ultimate (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It's unhelpful to overlook the fact that behavior on all sides was ridiculous - responding to incivility with incivility is utterly stupid and childish, regardless of which space it is on-wiki or regardless of excuses like "he started it". Admin Flo blocked admin Rod for personal attacks (which might have been fine), in which case no unblock was warranted by Moni3 or Courcelle. Had Flo not blocked, an unblock would have taken place (which would have been fine) and it is very unlikely that a contributor would have been lost today. Flo has also given every indication that he blocked for tool misuse if the civility block didn't stick - admins should not block other admins on grounds of tool misuse (unless it is an emergency, like account compromised, vandalism, etc). If anything, this seems to have been handled poorly by all concerned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
        • No. It's unhelpful to defend this garbage. If you come to my talk page and call me a dogshit, I'll give you an earful. I'm a big boy, so presumably is malleus. But if you're one of those admin assholes who come to a user's talk page to throw invective, receive invective in turn and then block the peon because, well, you're big and powerful and the non-admin is just dog shit, that's a big problem far, far beyond the incivility crap the game players are constantly going on about. It's a fundamental failing of the way this place is run that this stuff happens all the time. The good news here was the rod-whatever was dumb enough to do the blocking himself. Usually the offended admin rounds up an uninvolved pal by email or in some chatroom so plausible deniability is preserved (so sorry to have to block you. But you used naughty words, and i just was happening by and was left little choice but to stop the disruption you instigated on your own talk page.)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse While I personally never had a problem with Rod and always thought him to be a good admin, I have to agree with Friday that in this case Rod simply made a mistake. Not only because of the personal attacks but also because he used his tools in a situation he was involved in. I do think though that Malleus should not have been unblocked, since in this case both sides were equally responsible for what happened. It's sad to see that Rod used this situation to announce his retirement though - he should accept that he was baited by Malleus and overreacted, misusing the tools in the process. We all make mistakes after all - how we handle them and the consequences is the important part. Regards SoWhy 09:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good block, Floquenbeam.'* Rod "advised" MF (he says), and MF didn't do as he was told, so Rod decided that was "disruption". What does "disruption" mean today? Lèse majesté ? Let me quote WP:BLOCK's list of what the actual blockable disruptions are: [11]. Did Malleus do any of that lot? Nope. "Disagreeing with our betters" isn't in there, that I can see. I quote some more from the same source: "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment " Did Rod do that? Nope again. I'm not much of a blocker, but Rod's block of Malleus was so horribly bad, and misused admin tools so flagrantly, that I think he should stay blocked his full time, and we should ignore his flouncing-off "retired" template. A small case of burnout, perhaps. We've all been there there, and when we are, the community should be protected from our bad actions. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC).
• Good block, blocking someone you're in an argument with for personal attacks no worse than the ones you've made yourself is very, very silly behaviour. Technically, I think both of them warranted a block given the bilateral nature of the argument - but unambiguously it should not have been Rod that did the blocking of Malleus. ~ mazca ^talk 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Fair enough block. But I hope Rod comes back to edit again when the block expires. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block and concur that admins should be held to the same standards as any other editors and that it is inappropriate to use admin tools against someone you're arguing with: I think that's what WP:INVOLVED is there to avoid; and I think it could have justified at least an RCF/U, had Rod not retired. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. I think he should be desysoped for his outrageous behavior. "blocking an Admin is a serious step to take, and should not be done unilaterally", give me a break. Sole Soul (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Flo: your version of events seems to have left out who made the first personal attack, which appears to be Malleus when he called Rod an idiot. The many people who watch Malleus' talk page, which includes many admins as well as notable editors highly active in the FA process, chose to ignore the attack and instead let it fester and grow. Indeed, to some extent they have joined in by being jocular about what occurred. These jokers include Moni3, who lifted the block on Malleus. The FA cabal is fun and productive, but it needs to be on its guard against its all too frequent slips into the unfunny and unproductive. DrKiernan (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Not quite right DrKiernan, not unless you believe that calling someone a coward is a term of endearment.[12] Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• • A quick look at my contributions should dispel any notion that I'm part of an FA cabal, Dr. K. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, but those that are have a habit of closing ranks rather than showing contrition when they make a mistake or behave poorly. That's what I find disappointing. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• It seems like the right decision was made here. Both sides went over the line from what I can see. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, this sucked.

Flo, in response to the particular question you posed, I believe that the situation reached the point where an urgent intervention was justified and arguably necessary. Within our existing policy and precedent this was fine.

Taking a step back - We have a longstanding history of having admins and longtime editors who reach the point that they're angered by something and escalate themselves into blowing up and leaving. We've had ongoing discussions about this, usually after someone good that we all knew flames out and disappears. I think that everyone acknowledges that figuring out a way to "talk people down off the ledge" would be far preferable to the blowups and departures which have charcterized so many experienced participants departures so far. With an experienced editor who's just being rude to people this is hard enough (and we don't really have any policy, precedent, or established responders who know how to do this reliably). With an admin who's used the admin bit inappropriately it gets much harder to deal with, as the amount of damage done is more severe.

I am going to point this thread out to Marc Riddell and a few others. Anyone else who has ideas about the meta-problem here is welcome to chime in.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Same shit, different day. As usual, the dysfunctional issue here is all the anonymous admins who were nowhere to be seen before this became the usual episode of Wiki Free Speech Groundhog Day, sponsored by Acme Tin Foil Hat Company. All you admins endorsing this block need to go and look and Rod's contribs, and split between yourselves the million and one BLPs Rod seemed to patrol all day every day ceaselessly. I certainly don't want any more crap like Fiddling Changes foisted on the pedia simply because Wikipedia doesn't have enough admins on the job because they can get wound up by the usual suspects so easily. So Malleus got wrongly blocked after yet again trolling the fuck out of a venue he had less than nothing new to contribute to with his Adminz R Evil crap, what's fucking new for fuck's sake? Sort your lives out all of you, or Moni3 is going to be the only actual admin left, to do all your actual proper work for you. And you all know how over-worked she is already, having to intervene on Malleus' behalf all the time. MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to step in on the Malleus lovefest, but he did call another user an "idiot", which in my book violates WP:NPA. I Don't know why he was unblocked... Oh, yeah, long-time users can get away with saying virtually anything they want to an admin. Ridiculous double-standard.  –Joshua Scott 20:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• What about an unblock review for Moni3's unblock of Malleus? It seems to me that of the three administrative actions (Rodhullandemu's block of Malleus, Floquenbeam's block of Rodhullandemu, Moni3's unblock of Malleus), the unblock of Malleus was the most egregious one. Floquenbeam stated that the block of Rodhullandemu was for incivility and personal attacks. Rodhullandemu is still blocked. Malleus' incivility and personal attacks in this case were very blatant and he was the first one to call Rodhullandemu an idiot. Malleus did not request an unblock and did not make any promises to respect WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in the future. Yet he was unblocked by Moni3 with the brilliant summary "Oh for Pete's sake". Now Moni3 offers the following amazing explanation for his unblock: "Does Malleus then have the right to be more abusive or ...gosh, I have no idea... something, because he's written over 20 FAs??" Did I miss something or did we at some point adopt a policy that Malleus is exempt from WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA?? Moni3 did a similar thing back on March 7, 2010, lifting a block as "ineffective" where malleus was blocked for personal attacks against User:Chillum, which lead directly to Chillum leaving the project for good. It seems to me that if someone deserves to be desysopped here or at least forbidden to ever unblock Malleus if someone blocks him again, it is Moni3, who apparently is determined to protect Mallleus, no matter the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Some feedback on the block. Good block
• Some feedback on my opinion in the extreme inappropriateness of the use of admin tools against someone you're arguing with, on their own talk page, right after you call them dogshit. Definitely agree.
• Some feedback on whether this misuse of the tools is worth an RFC/U or recall attempt. Only if it continues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment . Rod shouldn't have blocked Malleus (obviously); Flo shouldn't have blocked Rod, and Moni3 shouldn't have unblocked Malleus given that Rod was blocked. Either the both of them stayed blocked or neither. The actual correct thing to have done would have just been to unblock Malleus, told both Rod and Malleus to grow up, and then ask the community if there was a case for an RFCU based on Rod's incorrect use of admin tools. There is a very dubious sense of double standards here; a neutral observer might think that Malleus "gets away with" his incivility because of his (outstanding) article work - so then why doesn't Rod? If you're blocking for NPA (which should've been the only reason to - we don't block for crap decisions on tool use) you treat both parties in the same way. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I read it as Rod was blocked for blocking an opponent in a dispute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• With all due etc, you can't have read very hard. I can't see any ambiguity in the wording that "Personal attacks and harassment" was the block reason. – iridescent 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• True, I didn't read the log and relied on the post of 03:20, 11 July 2010. "grossly inappropriate use of admin tools" is what I read as what was really meant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a valid block reason; never has been, and never will be, since it's an unnecessary powder keg for fuelling factionalism and divisiveness. Other remedies, such as Talk page negotiation, and WP:RFC exist for that very purpose. Our Founding Fathers may not have anticipated where we may end up, but they at least set up some basic principles, one of which is that Administrators should be free from fear in applying non-negotiable policies. Rodhullandemu 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What isn't a valid block reason? Reading the specific thread you're responding to, it's one of three things.

'blocking an opponent in a dispute'

'Personal attacks and harassment'

'grossly inappropriate use of admin tools'

All three seem to be valid reasons to block. What invalid reason were you blocked for? --Onorem♠Dil 03:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong. I still think that Malleus needs to be specifically pointed out for some reason as exempt in WP:CIVIL, but that doesn't change your response. --Onorem♠Dil 03:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Black Kite's comment. Obviously, blocking someone you're arguing with is completely unacceptable and Malleus should have been unblocked. But I don't think Rodhullandemu should have been blocked and instead a discussion started regarding his actions. Sarah 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Alarming. The retirement is apparently over (see also Rod's talkpage), and ArbCom has, reasonably, rejected the request for arbitration as insufficiently prepared. I suggest an RFC/U is the appropriate next step. That is, if more users than me are disappointed to see Rod return to the fold with the exact same rigid attitude about the "non-negotiable policy" which "obliged" him to block Malleus? The plentiful good advice and resounding consensus against his block have not affected his defensiveness at all, it seems. That is sort of alarming, because of both his wildly unhealthy Wiki work schedule and his overly majestic attitude towards editors—signs of burnout, both. Unless Rod freely takes a break of a self-selected (but reasonable!) length, it's surely dispute resolution time: WP:RFC/U, then WP:RFAR. This affair should not be let slide and remain only as a living monument to Malleus' conviction that adminship is synonymous with abuse. Bishonen | talk 03:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC).

• Feh. I don't like his attitude much either, but a lot of people don't like my attitude, for instance. What matters is behavior. If he does it again, desysop him. For now, if he wants to rant about how he was right but doesn't take the same actions again, let him.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It happens, I am a believer in if the block is over then you can be proud of the results or the method you got there anyways. The sockpuppet actually was rather conscise about this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Leave him be. I think he'll figure it out. No need to take drastic measures over a single series of mistakes made in anger. Let him recover for a few days and think about it. Technically, he's right about WP:NPA being a blockable offense, but he may have neglected WP:INVOLVED in the process. Let him figure it out and we'll go from there. A desysopping would be punitive at this point, not preventative. N419BH 04:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I have no doubt hes "found Jesus" in his short wiki-incarceration. Hopefully it sticks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I also agree with Black Kite and Sarah. I'm particularly concerned that we have an Administrator twice unblocking Malleus, I would strongly suggest that he does not do this again. Why Malleus avoids blocks or gets unblocked for comments others are blocked for eludes me. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblocked in 12 minutes or less, both times. That could be seen by some as odd in itself. Just saying... Doc9871 (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Would you be equally concerned if an administrator had twice blocked me? No, I didn't think so. Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • You answered your own question incorrectly, Malleus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Bad all round No one comes out of this looking very good. Rod's block seems like an open-and-shut case of a bad block by an involved editor. But what does WP:UNINVOLVED say on the subject? In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Of course Rod is going to be the least objective judge of how severe those attacks were, but unfortunately, WP:WHEEL makes it rather difficult for another admin to endorse a block after the fact - and impossible, if a different admin unblocks. Speaking of which, I think that Moni3's unblock was worse than Rod's block, both in terms of involvement (as pointed out above, this isn't the first rapid unblock of Malleus by Moni3) and in comparison to policy (there was no unblock request and no indication that the disruption wouldn't continue). So if you folks with the pitchforks and torches could just move along over there... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What "disruption" is this you're talking about? I didn't see any disruption, and I certainly didn't see anyone blocked for disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, (because I happened to have met Rod in the past at the Prisoner article talkpage and I really liked his attitude), Good block because of the undeniable fact that Rod in his utterings and overall behaviour shows sure signs of burnout. That would, in itself, not matter at all. But acting up as an admin and using the powerful admin tools while burned out, is a recipe for tragedy and disaster, not to mention massive disruption. Let him cool off and regain his composure and for sure, no more 12 hour stints at Wikipedia during the recovery process please. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think Bali ultimate gets it exactly right above. If there was "baiting" it was by Rod - come on, it was entirely predictable how Malleus would respond and it looks to me like Rod was fishing for a reason to block him and cause all this drama.radek (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple move requests @ Cote d'Ivoire = disruption?

Anyone else agree that this is becoming effing ridiculous? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it Gdansk or Danzig? I agree, starting move discussions every week is not acceptable, and there should be a moratorium on doing so for at least X amount of time. NW (Talk) 13:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Need extra eyes on Colton Harris-Moore

Also known as the "Barefoot Bandit". Sounds like he was finally captured today after a two year manhunt. Not too many details as of yet. Expect a large amount of POV speculation, unsourced BLP additions, and many, many people attempting to add links to his facebook page and facebook fanclub. Extra admin eyes would be helpful. N419BH 14:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Stats are down?

See [13] for an example. We seem to be missing a lot of data from the last few days ([14]). Does anyone know what's happening? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a recurring issue with stats.grok.se - there were several threads last month about this on WP:VPT. —DoRD (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not stats.grok.se that's down - it gets its source data from http://dammit.lt/wikistats/ . If you look at that URL you'll see that the logs for the last few days are all broken. I'm guessing it's a server-side problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OMFG! the stats are down, quick someone give the nerds a tranqulizer before they go into traumatic shock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.101.182 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, someone signed out just to post that. --mboverload@ 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Request additional eyes

The article Ebionites, as viewers of these noticeboards will unfortunately very well know, has been referred to them repeatedly. Today, as can be seen at Talk:Ebionites#Misrepresentation of Tabor, I found that, at least according to the library edition I used, none of the pages included in reference citations 61 or 66 actually really support the material they are supposed to. I have previously asked another editor who has worked with the article in the past to review the references, but have not yet gotten a response. In any event, I think the article would benefit from receiving greater interest from the broader community. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog

At Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request, which I have recently been dealing with. Needn't be an admin, but it has grown and WP:NFCC is not really negotiable. Due diligence, you know. Rodhullandemu 23:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional eyes needed

I have just reblocked User:Rivenburg, who was blocked back in 2007 for strongly biased editing of Michel Thomas. Ultimately, his block was reviewed, and was reduced to a ban on editing that specific article (talk page editing permitted). He has recently returned and edited the article using the Rivenburg account; however, a review of the article's history compared with available checkuser data strongly indicates that he has continued editing while logged out for much of the time of his topic ban.

This article needs review by people with some knowledge of the historical period involved, and I will cross-post this to the Polish and Military History wikiprojects; however, in the interim, it would be very helpful if a few folks would add this page to their watchlist and keep an eye out for further biased logged-out edits. Thanks. Risker (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Rivenburg might be editing as an IP, I recommend the page be semi-protected for the interm while things are sorted out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking policy

I am a user from fa.wikipedia. In our project there are always disagreements on interpretation of en:Wikipedia:Blocking policy. It is said that "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". Please advise us on the following cases:

Case 1: Suppose that admin blocks a user for reasons such as sockpuppetry, vandalism, edit warring, ... . After the end of the blocking period, the blocked user starts vilifying or attacking the blocking admin. Is the blocking admin considered as involved admin. Is there any restriction for this admin to block the user again?

Case 2: Suppose that admin warns a user for vandalism or incivility or .... The warned user starts arguing with admin instead of accepting to change his/her behavior. Is this admin considered as involved admin now. Is there any restriction for this admin to block the user?

--Wayiran (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that our policies do not extend to fa.wiki, we have the express stipulation at WP:INVOLVED that "...an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." –xeno^talk 15:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Without more information about the exact circumstances surrounding the case, it's difficult to advise Wayiron how case 2 would be resolved on en-wiki in accordance with en-wiki policy. More information is needed about what it is the warned user is arguing about (and how the warned user is arguing about it). In case 1, the admin would generally not be permitted to use their tools - only one of the admin's peers may block for the perceived incivility/harassment. Although en-wiki's methods of resolving these issues may guide other projects (such as fa-wiki), it is in no way binding on those other projects as xeno has correctly noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)