Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ixfd64

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop 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: 14:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

  • protecting and unprotecting pages
  • deleting and undeleting pages
  • blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

Since achieving adminship on 21 September 2005, Ixfd64 has, without prior or follow-up discussion, reversed blocks (of vandals, suspected, vandals, and inappropriate usernames) set by several administrators. He has been questioned about this by Curps and by freakofnurture, yet nothing has changed, as he continues to reverse blocks without discussing them. This is disruptive and disrespectful toward his fellow administrators. Ixfd64 should, in the future, refrain from reversing such blocks without prior consultation.

Description

[edit]

Ixfd64 has shown poor judgment, discourtesy to other admins, and demonstrated inappropriate administrator behavior by unblocking numerous user accounts. In not one of these cases did Ixfd discuss the block with his fellow administrator before or after reversing it.

By Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd did not discuss any of these with Curps. His only interactions with Curps have been detailed below)

By freakofnurture (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd's interactions with freakofnurture have been detailed below)


By Brian0918 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited Brian's talk page [3].)

By others

[edit]

By DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited DragonflySixtyseven's talk page. [4])

By FireFox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited FireFox's talk page. [5])

By JoanneB (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has edited JoanneB's talk page twice, once for RFA congratulations, and once to thank her for reverting userpage vandalism. [6])

By Psy_guy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has edited Psy guy's talk page once, to congratulate his adminship. [7])

By Sango123 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited Sango's talk page. [8])

By The_Anome (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited Anome's talk page. [9])

By Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited Dmc's talk page. [10])

By Doc_glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd did not edit the portions of Doc's talk page that were active circa November 30, 2005 [11], [12])

By Johann_Wolfgang (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited Johann's talk page. [14])

By Jtkiefer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has left one comment on Jtkiefer's talk page, which is now deleted, but was in regards to Curps' methods, and made no mention of the user named below [15])

By Longhair (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited Longhair's talk page. [16])

By Lucky_6.9 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd did not discuss this with Lucky 6.9)

By NSLE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited NSLE's talk page. [17])

By Phroziac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited Phroziac's talk page. [18])

By Woohookitty (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): (Ixfd has never edited Woohoo's talk page. [19])

Very few of these should have actually been unblocked, and none of them without at least some discussion with (or even a "heads-up" to) the administrator(s) who first placed the block(s). As Curps has previously stated:

Unblocking and reblocking old blocks is merely not very productive; however unblocking old blocks and not reblocking them can be positively harmful. [20]

Despite this warning, in late December of 2005, Ixfd64's actions have not changed, as shown by his block log, linked below. As of 18:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC), he has performed 321 blocks and 1,239 unblocks. — Mar. 10, '06 [22:36] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Powers misused

[edit]

Unblocking (log):

Applicable policies

[edit]
  1. "If you disagree with a block... placed by another admin, please contact that admin to discuss the matter". Ixfd64 has edited user talk:Curps several times [21] and my user talk:freakofnurture once [22]. In all these postings, he did not once address the issue of his unblocking of users blocked by fellow administrators, neither before, nor after the fact, leaving his actions to be discovered primarily via the block log.
  2. Block wars in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful. They are a source of frustration and disappointment to many seasoned Wikipedians and tend to encourage further bad behavior on the part of the blocked user. Avoid them. If you disagree with a block, discuss the matter with the blocking admin and others, and try to reach a consensus, rather than unblocking. Bear in mind that the blocking admin is likely to know more about the background to the situation than you do. (emphasis added)
  1. Inappropriate usernames specifically include:
    • Nonsense: ...usernames that consist of random characters, such as "asd89w43jsw94".
    • Obfuscation: Misspellings, or spellings of the above with "cr34+1v3 sub5717u710nz" (creative substitutions)
    • Offense: Names which contain profanity, obscenities, or other potentially offensive language
  2. Furthermore:
    • "The username changing mechanism is currently disabled, and administrators may block inappropriate usernames on sight."
    • "Where inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames are coupled with vandalism, the username may be blocked indefinitely on sight: again, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy"
    • "Usernames that are designed to impersonate legitimate users may be blocked immediately. The IP address of these users should be left autoblocked." (emphasis added --f.o.n.)

Applicable principles

[edit]

Commentary from Jimbo Wales

[edit]
  • "...wheel warring is a very bad thing, and the culture around it needs to change." [23]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User talk:Ixfd64#Unblocking old blocks In this section, Ixfd64 is confronted twice by Curps. Ixfd64 blames the misunderstanding on deficiencies of the software.
  2. User talk:Ixfd64#You, sir, assume too much good faith. freakofnurture confronts Ixfd64 on the same issue, that of reversing blocks set by other administrators. Ixfd says "Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention. I will look into it."
  3. User talk:Ixfd64#"Troll penis" socks. Curps warns Ixfd again about unblocking vandal accounts and notes that this one resumed vandalism after being unblocked.
  4. User talk:Ixfd64#your unblock of User:Wick%C2%ADin%C2%ADator freakofnurture once again confronts Ixfd about reversing Curps' block of a bad username. This username was deliberately obfuscated by non-printing characters, as shown in the URL. Ixfd64 implies that this is Curps' fault.
  5. User talk:Ixfd64#User:Wsnhfshfkshfksd: having fun? freakofnurture confronts Ixfd regarding his unblocks of names which consisted of patent nonsense, such as random strokes on the keyboard. freak inquires as to Ixfd's rationale for unblocking these names, such as "Wsnhfshfkshfksd" and "XxBaK3rYxX91", which exceed all reasonable assumptions of good faith. Ixfd's stated reason is that they "...were blocked with undescriptive block summaries." He states that he meant to reblock but "It seems that the block didn't go through."
    Incidentally, I just realized that "XxBaK3rYxX91" is a leet spelling of "Bakery 91". But even if Ixfd realized that, no explanation was given. DS 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Undoing other admins' blocks a long thread initiated by SlimVirgin.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. — <freakofnurxture|talk> [22:36] Mar. 10, '06
  2. — FireFox • T [15:22, 12 March 2006]

Other users who endorse this statement

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 15:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Syrthiss 15:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KnowledgeOfSelf 15:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. pgk(talk) 16:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sango123 (e) 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -Shanel 18:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Stifle 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NSLE (T+C) at 00:40 UTC (2006-03-13)
  9. Curpsbot's "user..." block summaries annoy me too, but you don't see me overturning them. —Cryptic (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Although I have difficulties with the three or four applicable policies as noted in my outside view. -Splashtalk 22:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I believe Don't be a dick is not an official policy, could you strike that out or something? --Terence Ong 14:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This concerns me greatly. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ~ PseudoSudo 01:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. While he has responded favorably (and apparently made his decisions in good faith), I feel that the policy was broken originally, to great extents. Recommend Mentorship.^demon[yell at me] /15:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I am aware of this RfC. --Ixfd64 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I had not been responding much to this RfC - I had been busy catching up with some school work. Now, in response to the complaints about my removing of other administrators' blocks, I'll admit that I have indeed made bad judgement. I should not have removed their blocks.

Note that I did stop unblocking usernames which seemed to be created in bad faith. I also did not unblock users who had been properly notified (on their talk page) that their username was inappropriate.

However, there are a few things I'd like to clarify:

  • Emblenhoik (talk · contribs) - I probably meant to unblock an IP address, but clicked the wrong name
  • Xdark horsex (talk · contribs) - I don't think that the beastiality reference was part of this user's intention. The user might have just meant "dark horse", and added the x's to "decorate" his name. Many people like to "decorate" their usernames, if you know what I'm talking about.
  • Star Trek Is Friggin Awesome! (talk · contribs) - This name does not have the "user:" prefix, but the blocking administrator added it while blocking the account. This caused some confusion.
  • Mark is gay (talk · contribs) - Like above, this name does not have the "user:" prefix. I did reblock this account, but it doesn't show up in the block log due to the extra prefix being used. Try searching for "User:Mark is gay" instead of "User:User:Mark is gay" in the block log. When blocking users, administrators do not need to enter the "user:" prefix.
  • Tenen007 (talk · contribs), Melth (talk · contribs), Dave MSN (talk · contribs), Flushvul (talk · contribs), Innocent people sometimes (talk · contribs) - These were blocked for vandalism, but nothing shows up in contributions, and edit counters show no deleted edits. But then again, this could mean that their edits were removed from the database directly.
  • 1 jesus (talk · contribs) - Jesus is also a Hispanic name, although it is pronounced differently.
  • Angelaha (talk · contribs) - There's millions of Angelas out there...
  • Devil 214 (talk · contribs) - Again, this username has no "user:" prefix.
  • Shrimpy777 (talk · contribs) - Edit counters show no deleted edits.

As for the other inappropriate usernames, I have now blocked them. --Ixfd64 05:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the blocking policy, note that I am no longer unblocking usernames. I only unblock auto-blocked IP addresses now. For users blocked with undescriptive summaries, I now notify them by posting {{UsernameBlocked}} on their talk pages. --Ixfd64 18:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view 1

[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

It seems that user Ixfd64 has abused the process, but has made it clear that this was based on a series of misunderstandings on his part (some based on technical oddities). The greatest offense listed is the lack of communication, and that has yet to be addressed by the user in question. Should Ixfd64 assert that no further unblocking will be performed except as dictated by policy, and with appropriate communication in future, then I would hope that it is possible to put this event behind us as an unfortunate learning experience. If Ixfd64 is unwilling to make such an assurance, then the assumption of good faith would be strained to the breaking point. -Harmil

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Harmil 16:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Wayward Talk 04:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View 2

[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I see a certain amount of fault on all sides of this block war; the greater on the part of Ixfd64. It's uncivil to make a habit of reversing another admin's actions. But I am strongly in favor of explicit reasons being given for any admin action; I don't find a quickie note ("user") sufficient. However, Ixfd64 compounds the problem by reversing -- even with explicit notes -- without discussion with other admins. I'd like to ask all admins involved in this dispute to be more detailed in their explanations, discussing their actions fully at all times. John Reid 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Having had a chance now to read the reason for the use of obscure summaries, I don't think it is compelling.[reply]
  2. Xoloz 21:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC) On the merits, I think Ixfd64 was correct to unblock several of these, including those with a cryptic summary; however, doing so without communicating is disrespectful and counterproductive.[reply]
  3. Joe 06:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC) I concur in and with Xoloz's comments as well.[reply]
  4. I would note that the text "user..." is fine as a block reason, because the text seen by a blocked user explains it fully. Other than that I endorse this summary. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View 3

[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

It is fairly readily apparent that Ixfd64 was mistaken in a good number of the unblocks listed and in not communicating usefully with the various blocking admins.

It it good that Ixfd64 has responded positively to this RfC and has now reblocked many of the usernames.

It is frequently hard to fathom the reason for Curps's blocks since we are provided only with a dismissive "user...". This makes it hard to determine the grounds for blocking and in the absence of a good reason for a username block, a lifting of the block is reasonable: it may have bitten a newbie. A note to Curps would be in order, since he usually does have good reason.

To deal with the actual Request here, there are several points that need modification:

  1. It is hard to see what WP:POINT Ixfd64 may have been making. It is not clear that his actions were disruptive in the sense in which we use the word on Wikipedia — essentially we mean "actions with intent to disrupt". It is not clear that he was being wilfully disruptive to demonstrate something empirically, required in the very first section title of WP:POINT, so it is not clear that he was making a WP:POINT.
  2. WP:AGF swings both ways, particularly with #1 borne in mind.
  3. In its bluntness a reference to WP:DICK is unhelpful. The key sentence in m:Don't be a dick says "If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right.", a philosophy that Ixfd64 would have done well to heed in this case insofar as it says "if lots of people say 'don't do that', don't do it". So Ixfd64 tripped up on the meaning of WP:DICK, but was not really being one in the bad-attitude-driven-teenager sense. (Apologies to all teenagers; I was one not so long ago, too.)
  4. Perhaps most seriously, given the present climate, is the implicit accusation of wheel-warring. It seems that Ixfd64 has not repeated any of these unblocks. It is hard, then, to construe this as wheel-warring. It's misjudgement on a fairly wide scale, but it's not warring.


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Splashtalk 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Xoloz 21:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Grue  13:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TH 07:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ PseudoSudo 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Teke 04:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Misunderstanding and miscommunication on both sides; Curps, freakofnature, and Ixfd64 are all good admins.[reply]

Outside View 4

[edit]

Username related unblocking is mostly justified on the part of the accused. Currently username blocking policy is implemented far too strictly, and the actions of the accused are to be applauded because they prevent Gaming the system (using rules to act contrary to policies). The foundation of justice demands presumption of innosence, so it's better to unblock the guilty than to block the innocent. Loom91 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Most of unblocked usernames were harmless and not offensive. The admins who blocked them should be reprimanded for not assuming good faith.  Grue  13:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can only second Grue's statement. Applauding the actions of the accused is maybe a bit strong but I wouldn't condemn them. TH 07:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ixfd64&oldid=1142570093"