User talk:Brian0918/Complaints from Tony Sidaway

Aggiman[edit]

Can you explain this indefinite block?

03:09, 11 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "User:Aggiman" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeated vandalisms to multiple articles)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He sent an apology stating that he was drunk at the time and shouldn't have made all the vandalisms, so I unblocked him. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 00:35

At least, I thought I unblocked him. That was a couple days ago. It's still showing in the list, so I tried unblocking him again. I think the first time I only unblocked the IP that tried editing and was autoblocked. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 00:38

Well it's good that you decided to unblock him. But my question was this: Can you explain why you blocked him indefinitely? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I checked his last 4 edits, [1], [2], [3], [4], and the image of a US Flag turned into Nazi symbol, and concluded that he should be blocked indefinitely until he can explain his actions. He explained them, and has been unblocked. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 00:49

Well it's good that you did that.

The Benny Hin edit was a little bit naughty.
The first and particularly the second Joyce Meyer edits were pretty bad and merited a stiff warning to pull his socks up.
The Billy Graham edit is funny and extremely indecent, and he needs a jolly good finger-wagging for that alone.

Elsewhere he performs apparently useful edits. The Keflavik hijacking story is plausible.

Now about indefinite vs. infinite blocks: the MediaWiki code is definitive on this. The terms are semantically identical. You really shouldn't be blocking this kind of user, with a mix of good faith edits and what are essentially pranks, indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Such edits deserve immediate indefinite blocking. If such a user apologizes then, optionally we might let them back. This isn't a playground, it is an encyclopedia project. --Jimbo Wales 22:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More indefinite blocks[edit]

Could you explain these other recent indefinite blocks, all carried out in a five-minute period last Wednesday?

03:00, 14 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "Jesusjz (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)
02:59, 14 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "Ghettobrown (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)
02:59, 14 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "Vindimy (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)
02:57, 14 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "Herqles69 (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)
02:56, 14 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "BABABAprd (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)

What is the significance of the single-word summary "username"? Why have you placed no explanatory information on the talk or user pages of these users? Is there something wrong with their names? Do you have evidence that they attempted to impersonate anyone? While you may have had good reason to block them indefinitely without warning, there seems to be no way that I can tell if this is so. If they made any contributions, those have been removed. I thought that they might have been involved in the George W. Bush attacks, but I do not see those usernames in the summary of deleted edits, so I'd have to guess, and I don't think it's good for editors to have to guess why another editor was blocked indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another puzzling indefinite block[edit]

I notice that you blocked one user indefinitely for a single vandal edit:

21:40, 13 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "Joe123456789101112131415 (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (main page FA vandalism)

The only edit I see by this user is an obscenity inserted into Isaac Newton. Why did you block this editor indefinitely? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you adjusted this to a two-month block. This is still a grossly inappropriate reaction to a couple of user tests. I've removed the block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is perfectly appropriate.--Jimbo Wales 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely for creating a joke article[edit]

00:00, 13 December 2005, Brian0918 blocked Sardonites (talk • contribs) (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (creating fake content)

Looking around I see that he created a joke entry entitled Max Hasler about a murderer who spent much of his childhood eating lizards and conversing with chairs. This was another grossly inappropriate indefinite block. Again you left no message on his talk page, and clearly made no attempt to communicate with the user. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian0918 did the right thing in this case - Wikipedia has plenty of active contributors, and it requires a lot of effort to undo this kind of intentional damage, effort that is better spent somewhere else (like fact checking and source citing). We do not need foolish individuals writing fake articles, essentially spitting in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for. - JustinWick 18:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He made 15 contributions to that fake article from that username and 2 IPs, and was warned a total of 4 times on those IP's talk pages. He also uploaded a fake image of the fake person, which I deleted. Considering that anyone can register as many accounts as they want, I don't see the point in not making a long ban in this situation, since he had no other edits. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 18:41
I'm a bit shocked that you would like to unblock this person Tony. I also agree with Justin's points. --mav 19:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking indefinitely was definitely not a sensible way to deal with the problem, precisely because the same editor may try the same thing under a different username, and on that occasion it will be a matter of pure chance if he is detected. Far better to coax and cajole a known bad boy than to subject his account to an inappropriate block, which he can circumvent at his leisure simply by creating a new account. This was a case that should have been resolved by continued dialog. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this situation - I happen to know the person who created this article and the motivations behind it. It was meant, he described to me at the time, as an experiment to test the ability and intelligence of Wikipedia's editors to notice blatant fabrications. The article itself, in its basic form, was subtle, factually consistent in its setting and relatively plausible. As Sardonites (talk • contribs), the user made only one minor grammatical edit to the original article and left it to be found by any editor who chanced upon it. The content about eating lizards and talking to furniture may have been added later by an additional user but was completely unknown to Sardonites (talk • contribs). The use of such hyperbole and fantasy within the article would have detracted from the attempt to let the article exist unnoticed for the longest time possible. This is the only article or edit ever produced by the individual on wikipedia and was made to exist only as an example of how an obscure, dated account could be written within the style guide and pass under the radar. If it is within the ability of Wikipedia's file history to view the original article created by Sardonites (talk • contribs) then it would serve as a prime example of possibly the most heinous type of vandalism the editor's are up against - falsified, well written articles that are too obscure for most to recognise as fiction. -- Etherium|Talk 30 January 2006

Blocked without warning[edit]

I noticed this block:

16:28, 17 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "62.38.140.113 (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (adding linkspam to articles)

You don't seem to have given any warning. To my eyes, it looks as if the very first interaction between that editor and Wikipedia may well have been a notice telling that he had been blocked--albeit for only three hours. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal was repeatedly linkspamming pages on multiple IPs. Thanks for alerting me about the person, though, since I missed one of his linkspammings. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 20:16

He did a total of five link spams in the course of five minutes. Why was he blocked without warning? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was a link spammer. These are good blocks.--Jimbo Wales 22:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another odd-looking block[edit]

21:11, 6 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "Blastcage (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeated vandalisms despite warnings)

The user had made only three edits. albeit they were all minor instances of vandalism, and was blocked indefinitely, only two minutes after the first warning message was placed on his user talk page. He clearly cannot possibly have had time to read the warning, but in any case he had not made a single edit since that first warning.

How long have you been doing this? How far would I have to go back before I would not find these extremely eyebrow-raising blocks? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last warning I saw on his page said "This is your last warning, the next time you vandalize, you will be blocked." So I blocked. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 01:24

Blocking is understandable--you might not have realised that the warning concerned the same instance of vandalism--but my problem is that you blocked him indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roger55 indefinite block[edit]

16:50, 6 December 2005 Brian0918 blocked "Roger55 (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalisms)

This chap first edited 16:32, 6 December, replacing an existing picture of Charles III of Spain with some other image, since deleted. He then vandalized George W. Bush. He subsequently received two vandalism warnings (1634, 1637) and did no further edits. You blocked him indefinitely at 1650.

Why? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the 2 vandalisms and the obscene content in the image. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 01:25

Well, yes, but he had stopped. There was no continuing vandalism. Can you not see that action in such circumstances might be a cause for concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he stopped to see how long his vandalism would remain on the site. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 01:46

Well his first piece of vandalism was at 1632, and the second at 1633. Both instances of vandslism were off the site by 1636. So what was he waiting for between 1636 and 1650 when you blocked him?

No, I just don't see why you needed to block the fellow, and why in particular you needed to block him indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]