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: 08:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.
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.
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 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:
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] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Unblocking ( log):
(provide diffs and links)
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
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)
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:
As for the other inappropriate usernames, I have now blocked them. -- Ixfd64 05:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
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)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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:
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
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: 08:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.
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.
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 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:
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] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Unblocking ( log):
(provide diffs and links)
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
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)
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:
As for the other inappropriate usernames, I have now blocked them. -- Ixfd64 05:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
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)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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:
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.