User talk:68.50.103.212/Archive 1

Great edit/rewrite of Voting machine, 68.50.103.212. Your knowledge of the subject is commendable. Let's just hope that this time user Joebeone shows more respect for this contribution of yours than he/she has shown for those of others in the past, acting as if he/she were the owner of the article. Just one small objection: your edit deviates somewhat from the main subject, voting machines per se, and pays more attention to Voting systems, the subject of another article (and yes, I've noticed you also have contributed to that one). AVM 12:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey there -- thank you for your recent work watching for vandalism, enforcing NPOV &c. Do consider creating an account; in addition to protecting your privacy (no IP address shown), it gives you access to a bunch of very useful tools. Sdedeo (tips) 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not blank your talk page. It is considered vandalism. If length becomes a problem, feel free to archive it. Deltabeignet 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake.
Hey. I just reverted your changing the link on the Alito page, then I realized you might have been planning to change the name of the other article. Sorry if that was the case. --Allen 00:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I updated it. That was a typo though, thanks.

Do not edit out comments by others on RFCs

 * Even if the comments are wrong. Things will bear out in time. This is one of the wikipedia processes you must not interfere with, or consequences can be rather dramatic. Kim Bruning 10:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not edit comments on RFC's. I moved false statements to the talk page. Threats are not appreciated -- 68.50.103.212 21:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So you admit you edited out comments on an RFC. While we appreciate your concern with wikipedia and its process, please don't do that again. Kim Bruning 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with your premise. There was no admission of any guilt. While we appreciate your concern with wikipedia and its process as well, please do not accuse other uses falsely.
 * I'll put this down to miscommunication. Just well, like, don't touch that page, is all. Kim Bruning 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry wait, you did not listen to me. You can still undo your modifications to that page. Do that now. Kim Bruning 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not miscommunication. My edits were the correct action. You do not have this authority and you are out of line. -- 68.50.103.212 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
This IP address has temporarily been blocked from Wikipedia for repeatedly removing other users' signed comments from an RFC in progress, after having been warned about it. After the block expires, please feel free to return and make more constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks! Demi T/C 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Blocking
I did not delete signed user' comments from an RFC in progress. I moved factually incorrect statements entered in the wrong place to the discussion page. Administrator Demi did not perform any type of arbitration and has not responded to my emails asking for an explanation. I was not in violation of any Wikipedia policy and no user has said otherwise. I contend that this is an abuse of power by administrator Demi. -- 68.50.103.212 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like assistance in getting this posted in the Requests for administrator attention. Thank you.

You have been blocked for 12 hours from 21:36 onwards, so it's not a permanent block and you need some time to take some distance. You were blocked for edits like this: which are removing content. You are allowed to edit again in a couple of hours. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As I say on my user and talk pages, I check my email, but not more frequently than every few hours; however, I do watch the talk pages of users and addresses that I block. I'm sorry that you feel this is an abuse of administrator privileges, but I disagree with your description of the situation. Regarding your request for review by other administrators; certainly--the matter was posted to the administrator noticeboard (as I do with any block I perform that is a matter of judgment) for attention by other administrators. Demi T/C 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I conferred with Demi, and we mutually concurred that blocking was the correct course of action, in accordance with wikipedia policy. Do not edit the RFC again please. Kim Bruning 04:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, unless... what you can do is add your comment under that particular header, explaining why it is utterly impossible. People reading will then take that into account. But please don't remove other people's statements from the rfc page, as the page functions as a historic record of what has been discussed (whether accepted or rejected) Kim Bruning 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I still was offered no arbitration or warning by ANY admin. This was a completely unfair block. My edits were in good faith and not against any Wikipedia policy. Administrator Demi was not following Wikipedia protocol when blocking me without warning. I have still yet to see any evidence of what poicy I was in violation of. -- 68.50.103.212 06:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Blocking Continues
I received a 12 hour block by Admin Demi with no warning or arbitration offer from any admin. I have yet to been told of any Wikipedia policy was in violation of.
 * I am posting my follow up email to Admin Demi:
 * I will ask you again, please explain to me what Wikipedia policy I was in violation of. Please explain why you gave me no warning.


 * Please explain where the "matter was posted to the administrator noticeboard (as I do with any block I perform that is a matter of judgment) for attention by other administrators." There is no such entry of this in the Administrators' noticeboard history, or the discussion page history that I could find. If your post is on some different "administrator noticeboard" please let me know.

Can any other user or admin help me find what policy I was in violation of? Can anyone help me find where the "matter was posted to the administrator noticeboard" as stated by Demi? (I can't seem to find it) Has anyone else had a problem with administrators of this sort? (Please respond) -- 68.50.103.212 07:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing was posted :here. You were warned not to remove comments, you removed comments. This isn't a democracy, we don't have to present you with laws (policies) that you violated. You did the wrong thing, were warned not to do it and you did it again. Just sit out the block. By the way, the helpme is for new users, we are aware of your situation, there's no point in using over and over again.--Commander Keane 07:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do sincerely apologize for any misuse of helpme. I am not trying to break any rules. I thought it appeared to be appropriate. The article said "experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have." -- 68.50.103.212 08:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Unitary Administrator
In response to Demi and Commander Keane I did not allege that Wikipedia was a democracy. I just didn't know that Administrators were dictators with no guidlines. I also didn't realize any user can set there own policy unilaterally. Can any user decide what the "wrong thing" is? There is clearly an issue here. I have emailed | WikiEN-l mailing list in search of answers.-- 68.50.103.212 08:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the text of that email:

Unfair Blocking Complaint
I will post here the same text I posted to | WikiEN-l mailing list in search of answers: -- 68.50.103.212 10:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Context
This concerns the article Requests for comment/United States Congress, within the subsection "The established conduct methods have not been used." This section erroneously states "Both the Senate and the House have established ethics bodies which, so far as I can see, have not yet been used in an attempt to resolve this matter." (only members of the respective body can refer matters to the ethics committee)

Background
I possibly erroneously removed this. User:Kim Bruning reverted my changes reminding me not to delete comments from an RFC. I then corrected myself moving the erroneous text to the discussion page, explaining "Comments are misguided and statements are blatantly false, moved to talk." User:Kim Bruning immediately reverted my changes, ignoring my comment and saying "RV political vandalism. Please watch, block" I later reminded Kim that this was not vandalism and again moved the erroneous material to the discussion page, and explained "These comments are in the talk area and contain factually incorrect accusations. please do not revert again (3RR)." User:Kim Bruning threatened me on my user talk discussion page with "consequences" that "can be rather dramatic," and though not an administrator ordered me "don't touch that page."

Blocked
Responding to misleading comments by User:Kim Bruning, administrator User:Demi then unilaterally intervened and blocked me for 12 hours with the brief explanation of "Repeatedly removing valid comments from RFC." I believed this was an abuse of administrative privileges. I do not see how was in violation of any Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia article for blocking policy under the category "Excessive Reverts", links to the Three-Revert Rule. ("The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.") which as you can see I am not in violation of. I was not warned by any administrator and no arbitration was offered.

Follow-up
I have twice emailed User:Demi asking for an explanation, arbitration, or leniency for the excessive 12 hour block.

As explained in these emails to Demi, I am one of the primary contributors to the article in question. I am the original author and primary contributor to the related article Congressional Staffer Edits. I also was the user who originally uncovered the extent of the abuses by the Congressional IP address beyond Congressman Meehan. I have repeatedly worked to revert vandalism in Wikipedia as represented by my contributions. All of my edits have been in good faith. I believe this absolutely falls under the Wikipedia:Blocking policy for Controversial Blocks.

Plee
I ask that some form of arbitration be introduced to this situation. I still protest that my edits were correct and leaving factually incorrect information in the RFC degrades the credibility of the RFC and Wikipedia as a whole.

Furthermore if you have a review process for administrators I would recommend it for administrator User:Demi as I was blocked with no warning from any administrator, no arbitration was offered. Demi posted on my user discussion page but gave no explanation of my block other than he “disagree[s] with your description of the situation.” Admin  [[User:Commander Keane] added to the discussion that “This isn't a democracy, we don't have to present you with laws (policies) that you violated . You did the wrong thing.”

Questions
I ask the Wikipedia Community, are there no rules or regulations for administrators? Can administrators make unilateral decisions as to that what is “wrong or right?” How can any user know what is wrong or right? Were the actions of User:Demi correct?

Can any user post false declarations in an RFC? -- 68.50.103.212 10:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take my best crack at answering your questions and concerns. First, I hope you don't feel I've been unresponsive; as you have asked about the situation other editors have answered you as well as or better than I could have, but I have been paying attention. Secondly, a user may post "false declarations" in an RFC, but they should definitely be called on it--the cure for that is a response, not to make someone "unsay" their words. Thirdly, administrator actions by their nature are "unilateral", which is why I make sure any controversial block I make is posted on the adminstrator's noticeboard for further attention (the noticeboard is divided into subpages that are well-watched by administrators and others). And fourth, an administrator may block users for being disruptive. In general, the community does ask administrators to use their judgment as to what constitutes disruption, so I do that the best I can.
 * A further note--in your email to me you protest against my blocking you because you edit without a user account, if that's why I blocked you. I assure you it's not. I have no problems with anyone editing without a user account. Demi T/C 15:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I never thought you were unresponsive in fact I would like to thank you for your prompt replies. Second, I think your solution on the RFC situation is perfect. Thank you. I don't understand why no one could suggest that (or anything else even) originally. Why did you not post something on my talk page? Should I have just assumed the word of user:Kim Bruning as law? How can I know that kim is even correct? In fact according to what you're telling me here Kim's comment "Even if the comments are wrong. Things will bear out in time." is not correct.
 * A further note-- Thank you for responding to my questions. I do appreciate it. Really all I wanted was to find an appropriate way to be able to resolve the (what I thought was an obvious and severe) problem with the RFC. --68.50.103.212 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Authority, rules
All users on wikipedia have equal authority. Administrators only have additional responsibility. I'm well within my bounds to warn you about violating RFC policy. An administrator giving a second opinion is then certainly also permitted to block, given that a warning was issued.

On the rfc page itself, it merely states: Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

All other actions are prohibited. Including deleting, moving, merging, editing someone elses summary, etc.

The reason for this is that RFC is one of our oldest processes, and is a formalised means of discussion. Comments and opinions on lines of action are stated, and the state of the page is preserved for historical reference. In extreme cases, the contents of an rfc might be forwarded to the arbitration committee or to Jimbo Wales, and far-reaching action might be taken.

Usually (and especially with articles), being bold is a good and helpful trait, so please don't stop doing that. On the other hand, on a Requests for Comments page, being bold can cause trouble. That's why -as an excpetion to the rule- people have to comply with strict rules on such a page.

Sorry you ran into wikipedia policy so early. In future, if someone warns you, please listen to them carefully. You'll find they usually know what they're talking about. I hope you do stick around and help edit wikipedia more.

Kim Bruning 11:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (As a final note: On List of Administrators, I am listed as "administrator emiritus" :-) )


 * Ah! I see you were typing a reply back to me at the same time. I think it's great that you're contributing to articles on wikipedia. That's what we're here for. I have no issues whatsoever with people who edit articles. Kim Bruning 11:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your tone was not appropriate and you were very rude. You did not simply warn, you made inappropriate demands. Please take up my suggestion and read Civility. Additionaly the text I removed from the RFC was contradictory to "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse." Which is why I removed it in the first place. I still contend that both your reverts and the block were in error. -- 68.50.103.212 11:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (As a final note: On List of Administrators, you are listed under Former Administrators described as "The following users had sysop rights at one time but for various reasons are no longer admins." Why are you no longer an admin? ;-) )
 * Once texts are placed on rfc, you should not alter them. I think this has been made abundantly clear to you now.


 * I no longer have an admin flag because I voluntarily turned it in after having held it with distinction over a period of one year. I believe that this should become a wikipedia tradition, so that we have a pool of retired admins to fall back on.
 * I have been brief with you, but not incivil, in my mind. Kim Bruning 12:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote user:demi "I disagree with your description of the situation." I do not see how your commanding me "don't touch that page" is in any way civil. -- 68.50.103.212 12:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Another admin review: Kim has been entirely civil. You replied belligerently and apparently uncomprehendingly to his first warnings, effectively forcing him to simplify and summarize the message into "don't touch that page". You make a big mistake in taking Kim's warnings any less seriously because he's not an administrator. There's a jargon term on this site for chasing after formalities such as "I wasn't warned" in order to excuse one's improper actions: Wikilawyering. It's not appreciated. You had been warned when Demi blocked you; amply so. Warned by Kim. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Please do not take my actions as Wikilawyering. I honsetly was simplying trying to get some third party opinion. I feel the issue deserved more discussion rather than an immediate revert and blocking. I am not looking for any excuses for my actions. I honestly felt they were correct. Anyone who reviews my contributions to Wikipedia would see that all my edits are with good intentions. (I would appreciate it if you did not say otherwise) However, I do not understand how anyone can distinguish between being the personal beliefs of a user and what the "correct" action is? If I look at Wikipedia Policy and don't see violats of policy, why should I think I am wrong? Should my warning carry the same weight? -- 68.50.103.212 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Another opinion and offer of help
My general feeling looking over this page is that you feel that Wikipedia should have strict and formal processes and policies. Perhaps that's so, but the situation is much more fluid than that. Our policies and community norms have been built up piecemeal by many users over the years. I'm afraid that leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and quirks. Admins and experienced users are expected to make their own decisions based on their knowledge of the project and the community. In general, this works - or works well enough. But, or course, this is a strong disadvantage to new users, those who havn't touched much on the community side of the project, and those that expect consistency and clear rules.

One very strong community norm that has grown up is that other peoples comments should not be moved or deleted. There are exceptions to this, but in general, it's very much disapproved of - even if there are clear reasons for the move. Blocking for repeated challenges of this sort of community norm or tradition are not unusual.

As you say, it can be very difficult to know when someone is merely giving their own opinion and when they are talking about a strong tradition. And when the community will accept that someone backs up their words with a block and when they will be censured for doing so. Wikipedia works largely on reputation. We don't actually know each other or each other's credentials on or off-wiki. So we depend on observing each other's work over time, impressions of past interactions, and networking. This again isn't very fair to new users, or to those that choose to remain anonymous, but I'm not sure what else would work in the strange situation of Wikipedia. Admins tend to be people who have built up their reputation, but there are people like Kim with a high reputation who (for some reason or another) are not currently admins. I don't know what to suggest on this, except talking to several users (as you have done) to find out who is experienced enough to know that what they are saying is correct.

I'm sorry this is so long. I hope it makes some sort of sense. I also wanted to offer you a couple of other avenues to get some more input if you need it (I'm not sure where the issue stands at the moment). We have an information team at info-en@wikipedia.org - this is a group of experienced Wikipedians who have agreed to help with email to Jimbo, the board, and the Wikimedia Foundation. If you put "FAO Lisa Carter" on the mail, I will deal with it personally - or another on the team can reply if you prefer. Or, if you would like to talk things over more personally, my own email address is sannse@tiscali.co.uk -- sannse (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the response. I really regret any tension I might have caused with all this. I originaly wanted to correct an edit to an RFC (that everyone invloved so far agrees is an error). I could not understand why user:Kim Bruning would admit there was an error but refuse to allow me to do anything about it. I still do not understand why Admin user:Demi blocked me immediately without comment to me. Now I know Wikipedia does have policies. I am not by any means saying that they need to be strict and formal, but in this situation they don't seem to have even been included here informally or otherwise. As you said "Wikipedia works largely on reputation." If I can judge people on repuation, what do I use to judge policy. In this case I went and looked at the policy for this type of situation. The article said don't revert it more that three times. I reverted it only two times and both times tried to explain why my edits were in good faith. Now I'm not a brand new user, nor am I blind to the general function of Wikipedia. (I've logged in the realm of 300 edits over 6 months) But I have not been long enough to have personal relationships with admins (though it seems I do not, good or bad). How am I supposed to learn what is a correct action here on Wikipedia? The official Wikipedia Policies have played not role (that I've seen) in this dispute. What role do they play as a whole for this community? (thank you to anyone who responds, I think this is a great exchange of information) -- 68.50.103.212 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also I had previously emailed info-en. I'm still waiting on a reply, I'll let you know how it goes. Thanks again. -- 68.50.103.212 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish I could give you clear answers here, but there really are none. Policy is firm, except when it isn't.  Community norms have to be followed, except when they don't.  For example, the three revert rule you mention.  That is one of our more firm rules, but only in one direction.  If you revert more than three times, you will get blocked (unless no one notices or complains or the person who sees it thinks it was a reversion of vandalism).  But sometimes you will get blocked quicker that that if an admin thinks there is a good reason.  For example if the page is another user's User: page, or an arbitration page, or if the revert is considered particularly disruptive.  In that respect it's flexible.  And modifying other people's comments is another reason for a quick block.  Kim did warn you, and Demi blocked having seen that warning (it doesn't' have to be the admin himself that has warned, in fact there is no requirement for a warning if the admin judges it better to block instantly).  As to how you learn all this stuff... well, I would always recommend making an account.  You've chosen not to for some time, and that's up to you of course, but I do believe that it makes interacting on Wikipedia much easier.  And interacting over time is the best way to learn how the Wikipedia community works. The more positive interactions you have, the better people get to know you (and you them) and the easier it is to work out together how to make this encyclopaedia.  -- sannse (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Electronic Voting
68.50.103.212, we need to figure out a way to incorporate the stuff you want in Electronic voting without blasting a lot of good information out of existence. Could we please start a dialog here (that is more of a discussion than can be had in edit summaries)? (also posted to the Talk:Electronic voting page) -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize if "blasted" was a loaded term. The edit history looks like a lot of good stuff is gone.  Now that I look at it in depth, it appears to be more complicated.  Give me a bit to look at this (have some errands but will look back later today). -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. We'll call it even for me initially forgetting to put my reasons for edditing in the comments. -- 68.50.103.212 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)