Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany

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 listing of this dispute page at WP:RFC (which was: 20:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

UninvitedCompany, an administrator. Basically, he violated the blocking policy, by blocking me (for 72 hours) after I made 2 reverts, claiming I had broken the 3RR policy listing 4 reverts - 22:51 5 August 2005, 23:00 5 August 2005, 08:58 6 August, 23:12 6 August 2005 - however, none of these cover a period over 24 hours. At the time of the fourth revert listed, there was only 1 prior revert in the prior 24 hours. This is also true for the time of the 3rd revert listed.

I accused UnivitedCompany of breaking the blocking policy, and UnivitedCompany openly admitted doing so - "I have indeed violated the letter of the blocking policy". I also accused UninvitedCompany of blocking me because he/she has an anti-Islamic POV and didn't like the fact that I was opposing anti-Islamic POV pushers, UninvitedCompany replied admitting that they have an "extremely anti-Islamic" POV.

I don't feel this is appropriate behaviour for an administrator - violating blocking policy, and reinterpreting 3RR as 1RR, simply to punish people whose opinions they disagree with, isn't really something that should be permissable. Several administrators have already stated that the block was probably inappropriate (and none have supported UninvitedCompany's stance), but they seem unwilling to become involved (possibly due to UninvitedCompany's status as a longstanding admin (which UninvitedCompany claims makes him a "senior administrator", a post which simply does not exist), not that a cabal exists).

[edit] Powers misused

  • Blocking (log):
  1. -Ril-

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. Blocking a user who did not break 3RR falsely claiming that the user had done so
  2. Blocking the user for over 24 hours despite the 3RR not being broken
  3. Blocking the user because the user opposes anti-Islamic POV pushers and UninvitedCompany has an extremely anti-Islamic POV (and therefore sides with the POV pushers) - POV admitted at [1]

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User talk:-Ril-#3RR violation on The Bible and history

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Irishpunktom\talk 18:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)


[edit] Response

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 welcome broader review of the matter of -Ril-'s recent reverts and the actions I have taken in dealing with them.

Please note that my block was wholly unrelated to POV, as -Ril- has been made aware. I do not ordinarily follow the article involved and only stepped in because of the listing at WP:AN/3RR. The comment I made to Ril about POV was a mistaken attempt to agree with his hyperbole, which I had misunderstood because of the convoluted phrasing Ril had used. Ril has since acknowledged that the aforementioned hyperbole was a deliberate attempt to be misunderstood [2].

The more substantive issue is that the block was made based on four reverts in 24 hours and 21 minutes. I saw the edits 21 minutes outside the 24 hour window as a clear attempt to game the system, and blocked -Ril-. While other editors on the page in question were also making reverts, the reverts were spread out among a number of editors and so I couldn't justify a 3RR block against any of them.

Please note that I have been very clear from the beginning about the reasoning for the block, in particular acknowledging that the reverts were slightly outside the 24 hour window [3]:

I am blocking you for 72 hours due to your 3RR violation on The Bible and history.

Your fourth edit was 24 hours and nineteen minutes after your first. That's close enough for me, and here's why:

  • You are making sterile reverts with no discussion on the talk page and no attempt at compromise in wording.
  • You do not appear to be discussing your reverts with the other users on their talk pages or at any other location at Wikipedia.
  • Both the edit summaries and the timing of your reverts make it clear that you feel that 3 reverts a day is an entitlement, when it's not.
  • You appear to be engaging in sterile reverts on several other pages as well.
  • I note that you have already been blocked twice in the past month for 3RR violations and therefore I have blocked you for 72 hours rather than the customary 24 hours.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I anticipated that the block might be controversial, I listed it at Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log and at WP:AN/3RR. Here is the only comment I have received, on WP:AN/3RR, along with the ensuing responses:

  • I believe this listing is misleading. There is no 5-day 13RR. And no set of 3 of his edits cited as evidence were within the same 24 hour period. It is true that Ril was revert-warring excessively, and that is bad, but it is not 3RR, and listing as 3RR and treating it as if it were 3RR despite the fact it's clearly not is somewhat misleading, when the issue is problematic behavior (but not violation of this particular rule). Perhaps you want to propose a change of the 3RR policy or a new rule to include a massive number of reverts over a longer period of time? --Mysidia 16:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I blocked based on 34 reverts in 24 hours and 21 minutes, not for 13 reverts in 5 days. I believe that there is, and should be, enough elasticity in the 3RR to cover such obvious attempts to game the system. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
All the same, I would like to know... which 4 reverts were within the same 24 hour +/- 20 minute period? I assume you mean 4, since if he performed only 3 reverts in that time period, then he would not have been in violation of 3RR. Had he waited 24 hours and 21 minutes, it seems a clear demonstration that he had made a good effort to follow the 3RR policy. Reverts over 24 hours later are not what 3RR is about, the important thing about those reverts turning out to be so close to 24 hours apart is that he is not simply ignoring the rule, 3RR. There may indeed be gaming of the system attempted, he may merit blocking for a reason by some other name. Just like with other edit wars, doesn't Wikipedia have a dispute resolution process which would be more appropriate? --Mysidia 06:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
You are correct. There were 4 reverts, not 3. I have a list of them at User_talk:-Ril- and most of the discussion is there as well. I dislike 3RR blocks because of the mechanical nature of the rule, and only apply them when there is evidence of an ongoing problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that other administrators have applied their judgement to make 3RR blocks for edits slightly outside the 24 hour window, in the past, under similar circumstances -- that is, those where there is both a clear problem with sterile reverts and an attempt to game the system. Finally, though Ril has not brought this up, I blocked for 72 hours rather than 24, due to the two prior 3RR violations in the last month, even though the letter of the blocking policy may not support it.

In summary, though my block did not follow the letter of the policy, I believe that it was justified both by precedent and by circumstance. I have made every effort to make my actions transparent and to invite others to review what I have done. And though I stand by my actions, I do welcome additional discussion both of this particular case and the principles involved.

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

  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement, and gaming the system is a bad idea. --Carnildo 21:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. -Splash 22:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Noitall See further response below. Note that just today, -Ril- deleted my comments ON THIS PAGE while soliciting others (see Page history here). Also note that, just today, -Ril- trolled my pages and reverted me about 10 times. 3 of the times reverted were on the very page he was blocked for, The Bible and history, just today! (for a total of 17 or more attack reverts)! -Ril- even tried to disguise his 3rd revert today, see [4] Some of what -Ril- deleted from this page has been stated, so I will shorten it, as below.
  5. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:16, 2005 August 10 (UTC) Ril's gaming of the system violates the spirit of the policy.
  6. --cesarb 23:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. --Phroziac (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Dmcdevit·t 05:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC) This RFC is frivolous. Ril appears to think he is above the common practice of the rest of the community. See his current RFAr.
  9. -Ril- asks us to violate the spirit of our policies in order to adhere to the letter thereof. UninvitedCompany has violated the letter in order to preserve the spirit. My sympathies lie with the latter option. --Michael Snow 16:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. --Mysidia (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Calton | Talk 00:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  12. El_C 11:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. User:-Ril- was out of line. He knows he is walking and stepping over the line, and is doing nothing to change his behavior. Agriculture 21:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. I also question the validity of the RfC. For it to be valid, evidence must be provided that two people tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Where are the diffs to show the effort made by Irishpunktom to resolve this? Also, the 3RR page makes it clear that we are not meant to "game the system" by making a fourth edit just outside of twenty-four hours. Ann Heneghan (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. yet another troll succeeding in wasting everybody's time. dab (ᛏ) 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. encephalon Ridiculous charge against an outstanding member of the community.

[edit] Additional response by Noitall (involved party)

I am going to edit here because it was my dispute with -Ril- that caused UninvitedCompany to be the current target of -Ril-'s rage, which I feel bad about. Numerous other editors have attempted to resolve problems caused by -Ril-, but he is so extreme they see the problem as unresolvable due to -Ril-'s attempts at vengence, which is what started this RfC. Here are a couple of points:

  1. -Ril- did not cite the page, here is the correct citation of problem: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Note UninvitedCompany attempted to discretely take the actions so he responded on -Ril-'s talk page.[5]
  2. -Ril- did not give the reason for his 72 hour block (now provided above)
  3. prior instance of attempts at mediation with -Ril-: [6]
    Wesley, please be my guest. Two other editors have tried to intercede to no avail. The problem is that -Ril- does not have an edit dispute, he has targeted me. He has done so on about 40 pages so far as he trolls my edits. I keep threatening to do an RfC, but it seems like such a waste of time and effort when I would prefer to be editing. Bottom line, ignoring for the moment his personal vendetta against me, he says "POV" about 100 times without ever once stating what is POV. Jayjg suggested a change to the edit and made it and it was fine. -Ril- even reverted that thinking that I made the edit. Wesley, if you want to stroll into -Ril-world, you are welcome to try. Note his stuborness and crazy disputes on his talk page, as we speak. In fact, I will follow whatever recommendation you make. --Noitall 05:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Now -Ril- continuing (or expanding) his behavior from before the ban.
  5. -Ril- erased this statement from the page and he erased it from his User page, see [7] where -Ril- erased responses to his own requests and accusing 6 Admins of trolling a cut and paste:
    Ril's reason: (→Administrators contacted by -Ril- who have declined to unblock - r.v. UninvitedCompany. This is my talk page. Stop trolling.):
    Administrators contacted by -Ril- who have declined to unblock
    1. Hello. I have no interest in trying to be a part in the conflict about your recent reversions. It is certainly not reasonable for me to unblock you just because I had another opinion than the blocking admin. As I'm not part of the story and don't know about it's full extents I prefer to stay out of the discussion too. — Sverdrup 01:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    2. As do I. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    3. Ditto (correction: I had no opinion or for that matter knowledge of it, I simply can't spare the time to involve myself in the dispute). El_C 05:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    4. Since the block is not indefinite, I don't think it's appropriate to intervene, jimfbleak 05:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    5. On a related note, I have received your email. I would prefer not to get involved in this matter at all due to the complexity of the case. There is a message about this block from Noitall at WP:AN/I - RedWordSmith 03:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    6. I'm not interested in being a part of this either. I'm on vacation, anyway. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Please note that Ril has repeatedly deleted the above comment. Dmcdevit·t 21:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. --Noitall 22:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Noitall, please note, it was UninvitedCompany who added the comments by those Admins, and UninvitedCompany that that edit summary is requesting to stop trolling. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    Noitall, please note, a request for mediation is a request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. There has been none concerning me. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

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.

The Description given by -Ril- implies that four reverts just outside 24 hours is acceptable practise. WP:3RR says:

"Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee. This can also apply to ... making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period..."

This is a clear statement that relying on -Ril-'s initial assumption is flawed; sufficiently so that if relied upon regularly the ArbComm will step in. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states:

"...a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies might be reprimanded even if the letter of the rules has not been violated."

Taken together these two statements from official policy pages provide adequate grounds for this particular block, and UninvitedCompany is within reason to exercise Bureaucrat judgement.

As has been pointed out, -Ril- has been blocked for 3RR violations before. -Ril-'s four reverts cited above are sterile even though the ArbComm has in the past made findings-of-fact condemning sterile reversions. Since this RfC relates to the question of whether -Ril-'s reverts are likely to be conducive to productive editing on Wikipedia, I suggest that -Ril- consider voluntarily following the one-revert-rule i.e. revert only once before taking discussion to the talk page and waiting a day before reverting again. This will avoid all future questions of 3RR violations and demonstrate -Ril-'s respect for other editors' contributions.

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

  1. Splash 22:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Calton | Talk 02:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agriculture 21:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Ta bu shi da yu

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 suggest you all view User talk:-Ril-#Source to get some idea of what sort of editor admins are dealing with here. I'm not commenting on the specific things allegedly done here, I am just giving everyone some context as to the user who has filed this RFC. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are not commenting on the allegations against UninvitedCompany, then don't comment. This is an RFC against UninvitedCompany, for the specific issue of abuse of admin powers, not a "we all hate X" board. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obliquely involved view of TShilo12 (Tomer)

Note: The relevance of these comments may become clearer after reading Noitall's statement above

I have become aware of the problems between User:-Ril- and User:Noitall since the abortive (and inappropriate) RfC that User:Agriculture brought against User:Noitall regarding problems with Lincoln. I readily admit I don't know how long the dispute between these two editors has been ongoing, but it was clearly already firmly established by that time, as evidenced, if by nothing else, by -Ril-'s completely improper certification of the basis for the RfC. For good measure, -Ril- trolled User:Mustafaa's talk page, asking him to come certify based solely on the fact that, at least according to the assertion made there by -Ril-, Noitall at one time called Mustafaa a "terrorist". (How that was remotely relevant to a revert war at Lincoln I'll never know...) When that RfC was deleted as improper, -Ril- promptly went to VFU, where ... well, you can read the sordid details on the history of VFU. -Ril- is a classic "problem editor", who violates so many policies and guidelines every day that it's almost mindboggling. I've been trying in the past couple days to gently nudge him toward more productive activity, but he's made such a horrific name for himself that I don't know whether or not my attempts will persuade others to "give him a chance" to reform himself. This RFC is entirely the result of vendetta he has now developed against TheUninvitedCo as a result of a fairly routine block instituted as a form of strict punishment for a serial reverter. I would hate for this to have to go as far as ArbCom, but -Ril- has to understand that there are some serious problems with his established style of interaction with fellow wikipedians. Without some stated (and enforceable) commitment on the part of -Ril- to work less disruptively and confrontationally with fellow wikipedians, however, I don't see how this behavior can continue long without it ultimately resulting an RfAr far more severe than his obstiancy regarding his sig. Splash recommends getting -Ril- to commit to voluntarily committing to the one revert rule. I would recommend that -Ril- commit voluntarily to a zero revert rule, and limit himself to useful alterations, or to hashing things out on article and user talkpages without violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA, for a period of at least one month, if for no other reason, than to demonstrate that he actually is in control of himself.

-->From Noitall, for completeness as to its beginning, I had only just run into -Ril- on the The Bible and history when he immediately trolled my edits and found the "RfC" which he involved himself in. I would note that I have not had a single problem with the other editor that caused that problem, only with -Ril-, which got worse after he followed me onto more than 40 pages and serial reverted.

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

  1. Tomer TALK 07:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Doc (?) 09:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC) -Ril- is intelligent, knowledgeable and has lot to offer. However, the aggressive confrontational style, and breaches of policy/civility, combined with self-righteous indignation when he is chastised, means that he is currently on a collision course with the wider community. He is just p***ing off too many people. This ‘anti-social behaviour’ can only end badly. In the end it is up to –Ril-, change the tone or, in the end, part company with WP (and that, I think would be a shame).

[edit] Outside view of Jwrosenzweig

Speaking only to the question of rule violation, I'd argue that UC was well within his discretion as an admin to block someone for a 4th revert in 24.3 hours. Yes, there is a "4 reverts in 24 hours" rule, but an editor who is clearly persisting in edit-warring and who is attempting to game the system (by reverting just outside the 24 hour window) is clearly not editing in good faith, or with respect for this site's goals. I don't have a problem with UC's actions because I believe that any continuation of an edit war is harmful to the community -- I don't think we can block people for edit warring per se, but when someone is clearly trying to just skate around the letter of the 3RR law, I think it's legitimate to respond as forcefully as UC did. Jwrosenzweig 10:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Outside view of Kim Bruning

Have the old rules of "no edit warring" ever been revoked? Even if there's no hard and fast rule, it's certainly a disruption to edit war. If someone is doing a low intensity edit war for days on end, I'd just do something to keep them from continuing, maybe a block would draw their attention.

Just because there's a rule that's remotely close, doesn't mean that other approaches aren't also still permissable, or might indeed not be preferable. Use common sense. :-)

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

[edit] Addendum to previous comments by TShilo12 (Tomer) & notification of grounds for summary dismissal hereof

I see that User:Irishpunktom, who has a whole host of completely unrelated problem areas to work on (WP:NOR, WP:CIV, WP:CON, WP:NPA, etc.), one of a number of users petitioned by -Ril- to be co-signatory to this RFC, signed on as co-signatory. I am hard-pressed, however, to find any evidence whatsoever that his co-signing the RFC is valid; i.e., I see nothing to indicate that he has ever been involved anywhere in attempting to resolve this difference of opinion between -Ril- and TheUninvitedCo.

Despite that, I don't think that deleting this RFC out of hand, on that technicality, is the best move. -Ril- is a stickler for protocol, especially when he thinks it provides a wind to his back. Therefore, while I think the fact that IPT's cosigning renders this RFC technically dead, there is a more important problem here that needs to be dealt with, preferably now, rather than 3 weeks down the road. I would like to therefore classify this RFC as "improper" but not "dismissed".

I am going to assume good faith, and recommend that both -Ril- and Irishpunktom re-read the guidelines for RFC, since apparently neither of them as yet completely understand the import or rôle of this step in dispute resolution. I, Tomer, personally am volunteering to answer any questions they may have regarding interpretations of the guidelines laid out for this step in the process, and would ask that those who cosign this section also make themselves civilly available to answer any questions either may have regarding WP:DR.

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

  1. Tomer TALK 11:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Calton | Talk 00:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to hopefully prevent this from becoming an issue again

I am hereby volunteering to coach and mentor User:-Ril- for the period of 3 months of the closing of this RFC, upon his agreement thereto, in modes of proper conduct wrt other editors, as well as in modes of proper activities wrt how to edit articles according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, with one strong caveat: my agreement to mentorship in this regard is contingent upon two factors: that at least two other "seasoned editors" agree to assist in such mentorship, and that -Ril- agree to abide by a majority vote (and that means, if 3 others agree to this proposal, and 2 of the 4 of us say "stop it", that's 50%, round WAY up = "stop it") of his mentors to let things rest, he'll let things rest, or attempt to convince us of the "betterness" of his contentious edits, civilly, on OUR USER TALK PAGES. If any cosignatory mentor chooses to recuse themself, that should be made known to the rest of the mentors immediately by the recusing mentor, and another replacement outside opinion should be sought to replace that mentor's. I realize this sounds incredibly legalistic, but with -Ril-, until he "learns the ropes" better, I think the specifics of this are necessary. As an additional caveat, any disputes -Ril- has with the decisions of his mentors should be restricted to the talkpages of said mentors. I realize this proposal might sound a bit excessive, but I honestly believe -Ril- has the potential to be an excellent contributor. If it were otherwise, I would have simply pointed out the invalidity of IPT's certification and recommended the summary dismissal of the RFC. Any volunteers (the more the merrier) to be mentors for -Ril- may signify in their endorsements of this proposal by simply writing "volunteer".

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

  1. Tomer TALK 11:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC) volunteer to mentor -Ril- for 3 months from the closing of this RFC.

[edit] This space reserved for -Ril-'s agreement to abide by, or argue for alterations to, the terms above

Discussion of ME is only appropriate in an RFC against ME. This is not. Please stay on topic. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, when you open an RFC regarding a dispute, all involved parties are subject to scrutiny. Tomer TALK 19:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Only when you open an RFC about User conduct. This isn't an RFC about user conduct. This is an RFC about abuse of administrator priviledges, has a different template, and goes in a different section. Feel free to scrutinise any abuse of administrator privilidges you think I have made. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Your behavior is on topic. One cannot criticise an admin's use of blocking without investigating the behavior of the blocked user. Furthermore, 'RFC' means 'Request for comments'; you asked for comments, you get them; whether you like them or not. I'd add that if your behavior was beyond reproach, why would you have a problem with being discussed? —Morven 22:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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