Hi Admins, this is a note mainly for Culator, but I want everyones opinion, I hope theres a good reason for them all and its just me being blind, hope we can resolve this in a civil way, without anyone getting blocked *glances around nervously*: how come Culator unblocked Sikon "Because he asked" and yet when Manoof asks to be unblocked you block him (his IP) for "Block evasion". Is this just because you disagree with what Manoof wants to put on the SWTCG article and you get to decided who's aloud to be on Wookieepedia (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit) or is there some deep reason? And why did you block anon 89.210.112.0/20 for being a sock puppet when he/she has never edited anything, this means that the user who's IP this is can't complain about being unfairly blocked (not that you've ever blocked someone unfairly). Also why did you block Dark potato when he hasn't edited anything either? Also (I'm sure there is a good reason for this one) is Silly Dan 2 an "Unacceptable username" but Silly Dan isn't, is this imposting or something? Here's another, you blocked 68.230.57.83 for adding nonsense after being warned but he/she only added nonsense once and then didn't add any nonsense again, so he'she wasn't adding nonsense after being warned. I hope you put aside the time to answer these. Thanks very much and have a nice day - Kingpin13 09:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Sikon is a trusted user and former administrator who left voluntarily; he had blocked himself infinitely, so it's not like there was any punishment he was skirting. 2) Many vandalism edits can't be seen by normal users, because they're on deleted articles; if someone creates an article with a nonsense title, we delete it, and the edits no longer appear in their contributions. In the case of 68.230.57.83, they created "Super daiper baby 3" and a couple other vandalism articles over a course of days. 3) Silly Dan is an important admin, so any nicknames imitating him are not allowed. The same would go for any nicknames that are too similar to major editors. -LtNOWIS 09:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks very much for that. Still got one through. How come Culator blocked Manoof's IP for complaining about being blocked unfairly? Personally I think that it was an unfair blocking exspecially if it's a block until the 8th of November, and if I understand correctly this is for asking(on a talk page) if it's okay to put a mention of the IDC in the SWTCG article. Manoof got no warning and a massive block. - Kingpin13 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with what you have to say Kingpin, I am really User:Tom rules and I was blocked by Darth Culator for suggesting on the Senate Hall Forum that we should bring back User:Jack Nebulax. I did not intend this as vandalism, but apparantly it is "Vandalism and/or general disruption". I was also blocked for a month, despite this being a first offence and the blocking policy advising only a warning for this. I emailed him about this twice, but he refused to answer them, which I find to be slightly rude. I have also been watching Culator closely and believe that the blocking policy should be more firmly regulated, to ensure all users are treated fairly and that some admins are not overzealous --80.42.10.134 (moved comment from talk - Kingpin13 09:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
- What did Jack even do?—Unsigned comment by 71.214.117.22 (talk • contribs).
- Lots of things, his final block was for edit war - Kingpin13 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- There's this rule called administrative autonomy, which states that all administrators will respect the decisions of other administrators. Despite any and all disagreements I may or may not have with other administrators, including Darth Culator, on matters of interpretation and site policy, I don't feel that the Noticeboard is designed for calling out administrators who haven't specifically violated WP:BLOCK or other policies. Culator's blocks are not explicit violations of the policy. 80.42.10.134, I'm extending your block for evading blocks-which is prohibited-and as far as Culator's block of Manoof is concerned, that's an issue between Culator and Manoof. Administrators have discretion over the block length and type, and he, as the "admin on the ground", made the call. So, even if it's not the call I would have made, I'm going to back up Culator and hope the rest of the administration closes ranks and shows our unity and respect for one another. Lastly, life is not fair, but I strongly recommend that this forum isn't turned into a witch-hunt. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay it's not intended by me (or anyone else I hope) that this forum be a witch-hunt. I still have a problem with Manoof being blocked, if it's an issue between Manoof and Culator then all Calator has to do is block Manoof, and Manoof can't settle that issue. A question for Culator (if he ever looks here): Why did you actually block Manoof, was it for edit warring or atempting to add fanon or what? A question for Ataru, or any other admin: if an Admin does violated WP:BLOCK does the administrative autonomy still apply? Thanks - Kingpin13 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Blocks that need to be questioned are generally resolved via means of e-mail or IRC. I know Culator is always in IRC, so that's his preferred way to be reached. If there is a direct violation of WP:BLOCK, the administrator in question can have their decision questioned by other administrators and determined by private administrator consensus; that's how it's worked in the past. That's very rare, and in general, admins tend to trust the judgment of other admins. If there are repeated violations, the administrator in question can be placed under WP:RFRA and have their powers removed. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 16:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Blocks that need to be questioned are generally resolved via means of e-mail or IRC. I know Culator is always in IRC, so that's his preferred way to be reached. If there is a direct violation of WP:BLOCK, the administrator in question can have their decision questioned by other administrators and determined by private administrator consensus; that's how it's worked in the past. That's very rare, and in general, admins tend to trust the judgment of other admins. If there are repeated violations, the administrator in question can be placed under WP:RFRA and have their powers removed. Atarumaster88
- Okay it's not intended by me (or anyone else I hope) that this forum be a witch-hunt. I still have a problem with Manoof being blocked, if it's an issue between Manoof and Culator then all Calator has to do is block Manoof, and Manoof can't settle that issue. A question for Culator (if he ever looks here): Why did you actually block Manoof, was it for edit warring or atempting to add fanon or what? A question for Ataru, or any other admin: if an Admin does violated WP:BLOCK does the administrative autonomy still apply? Thanks - Kingpin13 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- There's this rule called administrative autonomy, which states that all administrators will respect the decisions of other administrators. Despite any and all disagreements I may or may not have with other administrators, including Darth Culator, on matters of interpretation and site policy, I don't feel that the Noticeboard is designed for calling out administrators who haven't specifically violated WP:BLOCK or other policies. Culator's blocks are not explicit violations of the policy. 80.42.10.134, I'm extending your block for evading blocks-which is prohibited-and as far as Culator's block of Manoof is concerned, that's an issue between Culator and Manoof. Administrators have discretion over the block length and type, and he, as the "admin on the ground", made the call. So, even if it's not the call I would have made, I'm going to back up Culator and hope the rest of the administration closes ranks and shows our unity and respect for one another. Lastly, life is not fair, but I strongly recommend that this forum isn't turned into a witch-hunt. Atarumaster88
- Lots of things, his final block was for edit war - Kingpin13 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I blocked Manoof because he has a long history of trying to force his fanon spam onto the TCG pages. You can't vote to include fanon on a page. That's not how it works or will ever work. I blocked Tom because he out-and-out stated his intention to do something blatantly disruptive. You can't petition for people who have been justifiably blocked to be unblocked no matter how popular they may have been. That's also not how the system works or will ever work. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not petitioning for people who have been justifiably blocked I'm merely asking why they were blocked, so I'd rather if you didn't implie that I was. I personally think that IDC should be given a mention in the SWTCG article, so I've been meaning to ask (andd have asked twice with no replies) if it would be okay to mention them in BTS, this shouldn't count as spamming anymore then putting a list of all the WotC expansions and giving each one it's own article. Not meaning to be rude but I don't see how placing a vote on a talk page is forcing fanon into the article, Manoof has done alot on the SWTCG article and I'm fairly sure the one you mentioned was a good faith edit so surely a warning is in order? Also we have whole articles on Fanon, I personally don't approve of this but a tiny mention of IDC can't kill the site. Also, regarding Tom, I don't see how asking to bring Jack back is disruptive, I'm sure Jack was blocked for a good reason but surely you can just say this rather then blocking everyone who even utters Jack's name, also why did Tom (and Manoof for that matter) receive no warning? Thanks - Kingpin13 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I misread that petitioning thing and thought it was aimed at me. Enough thing to add to the above "list" is is theere some page for the difintion of disruptive on Wookieepedia? Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions - Kingpin13 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- The definition of disruption is deliberately left vague to allow administrators to address behavior that is clearly disruptive without dealing with the headache of loopholes. Examples are provided on WP:BLOCK. Your interpretations of policy—which is what you've given above—are all very nice and well, but basically, it's up to the administrator in question to make his/her own interpretation and act upon it. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks very much for answering my questions - Kingpin13 08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- The definition of disruption is deliberately left vague to allow administrators to address behavior that is clearly disruptive without dealing with the headache of loopholes. Examples are provided on WP:BLOCK. Your interpretations of policy—which is what you've given above—are all very nice and well, but basically, it's up to the administrator in question to make his/her own interpretation and act upon it. Atarumaster88
- Okay, I misread that petitioning thing and thought it was aimed at me. Enough thing to add to the above "list" is is theere some page for the difintion of disruptive on Wookieepedia? Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions - Kingpin13 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not petitioning for people who have been justifiably blocked I'm merely asking why they were blocked, so I'd rather if you didn't implie that I was. I personally think that IDC should be given a mention in the SWTCG article, so I've been meaning to ask (andd have asked twice with no replies) if it would be okay to mention them in BTS, this shouldn't count as spamming anymore then putting a list of all the WotC expansions and giving each one it's own article. Not meaning to be rude but I don't see how placing a vote on a talk page is forcing fanon into the article, Manoof has done alot on the SWTCG article and I'm fairly sure the one you mentioned was a good faith edit so surely a warning is in order? Also we have whole articles on Fanon, I personally don't approve of this but a tiny mention of IDC can't kill the site. Also, regarding Tom, I don't see how asking to bring Jack back is disruptive, I'm sure Jack was blocked for a good reason but surely you can just say this rather then blocking everyone who even utters Jack's name, also why did Tom (and Manoof for that matter) receive no warning? Thanks - Kingpin13 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Aturumaster, I think it is a bit harsh that you have extended Tom rules's block for his comments made here, as you don't know for certain it was him. Furthermore, the blocking policy doesn't mention "evading a block" as grounds for being blocked, so it is as if you have just made up the offence. I agree with his comments over regulating blocking as adim autonomy is wrong, as people should be held accountable for their actions. However, I guess that the organization of this site is more Galactic Empire than Galactic Republic, with power in the hands of a few crazed individuals and only a few token gestures of democracy, like consensus's/Imperial Senate --AdminCritic 13:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Anon, it should be common sense that evading a punitive measure and being caught will earn you another punitive measure. We do have a policy for that, on WP:SOCK, which states "The use of sockpuppets to get around a ban will result in the sockpuppet username being permanently blocked. At the discretion of the administrators, the length of the original username's block may be extended." As for his identity, he admitted to being Tom rules. He's either A) Impersonating another user, which is a bannable offense, or B) he's telling the truth and is evading a block. Furthermore, admin autonomy was voted into existence by that democratic process you allege doesn't exist and trolling on this board will only earn you a ban under the disruption clause. So don't post here again. If you have a problem with me personally, take it up with me via e-mail, IRC, or my talk page. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Anon, it should be common sense that evading a punitive measure and being caught will earn you another punitive measure. We do have a policy for that, on WP:SOCK, which states "The use of sockpuppets to get around a ban will result in the sockpuppet username being permanently blocked. At the discretion of the administrators, the length of the original username's block may be extended." As for his identity, he admitted to being Tom rules. He's either A) Impersonating another user, which is a bannable offense, or B) he's telling the truth and is evading a block. Furthermore, admin autonomy was voted into existence by that democratic process you allege doesn't exist and trolling on this board will only earn you a ban under the disruption clause. So don't post here again. If you have a problem with me personally, take it up with me via e-mail, IRC, or my talk page. Atarumaster88
Hey give the Admins a break. They work very hard to better Wookiepedia. And although I can not talk for them I am sure they have a good reason for everything they do. And as stated before a better place for this might be on IRC, User talkpages, or via email. Kyp 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kyp. Oh, and btw, it's Wookieepedia with two e's. ;-) Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 05:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, surely it would like be a good idea to let Jack Nebulax come back. Yeah, he caused some minor disruption, but he like devoted his entire life to improving the site, so Wookieepedia would better off for it
- No, surely it wouldn't. He caused many, many disruptions of more than a minor nature, and while he devoted a great deal of time to the site, the improvements weren't worth said disruption. jSarek 23:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ataru I know I was in a hurry and I mussed of misspelled it. Oh, and by the way although I still support the admins 100% why do we have a Forum (Administrators' noticeboard) to report "admin abuse" if the other admins aren't going to do anything about it according to the Administrative autonomy policy. 02:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Whoops must have signed wrong, Kyp 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Two reasons. First, this board isn't solely for reporting administrative abuse; it's also for notifying admins of problems, and for administrators to work out administrative details regarding the site. Secondly, if you read Administrative Autonomy in full, there *are* ways for other admins to overrule an admin, though it's not the easiest of tasks. jSarek 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If an admin was really abusing there power would they be striped of there adminship or were there be other punishments. If there is a link to a page that explains this that would be great. Kyp 04:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Have a look here, not sure if that will explain it becuase I haven't read it all yet. - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 08:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That helps thanks Kyp 01:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)