Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

Yesterday an administrator blocked my regular IP 156.61.250.250 for six months. The block reason on the block notice was "persistent disruptive editing". Normally if an administrator feels there is a problem he will go to the user's talk page, give his thoughts, and allow the user a period to respond before blocking. In this case this did not happen. I feel the administrator's action was outside community guidelines and should be grateful if you would review it. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

a) They don't; and b) He won't. PS: You're now a WP:SOCK. _Fortuna 10:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See . 217.44.56.219 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change/Archive. Banned user Vote_(X)_for_Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was last discussed at Jimbotalk here: . JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Add links for 156.61.250.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:JoeSperrazza#Cited sources described as "unsourced" comment:

Sadly, the evidence is clear

Sadly, there is no link to any evidence, and Joe's link above is to a blank page. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See also User talk:Peter Damian#I was wrong and I apologize:

Nonetheless, I reiterate my sincere apology for all of my bad actions noted here.

Doesn't look as if Joe's behaviour has improved any. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mm ... the plot thickens. The above IP was blocked by Panyd for posting on Jimbotalk. But according to Jimbo (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 178#Semi-protection) it was a perfectly allowable post. Panyd is the wife of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry whose misuse of the blocking tool made headlines in all the media a month ago. The matter is currently being dealt with by Arbcom in camera. 81.157.95.83 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, in all fairness, looking at the block log I see that all these blocks were imposed by the same administrator. Future Perfect at Sunrise shouldn't have imposed the second block, let alone the third and fourth. The editor was accused by another editor, using a template, of synthesis and original research. I don't think there should be a template available which allows an editor to make such claims without giving reasons. Looking at the edit itself, it was almost word for word what was in the source supplied.

The situation seems to be similar to what arose between DangerousPanda and Barney the barney barney, which led to DangerousPanda's desysopping. Incidentally, if you examine the sock puppet investigation file which Joe links to you will see that virtually all the allegations are made by one editor - the same editor who falsely templated 156.61.250.250. People only "try it on" because they think you are not going to use your review powers. 81.157.95.83 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo is not interested in your problem. He only uses his "special powers" to further his own interests.MOMENTO (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't be too sure of that. If you look at his log of admin actions, not so long ago he unblocked an article talk page. Checking on the talk I found it was the result of a post on this page asking for the block to be lifted. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Future Perfect has no excuse. In a recent sock puppet investigation he blocked the socks but left the master for "someone more uninvolved" to deal with. Repeated blocking without justification, with no prior discussion, culminating in a six - month term, is about the biggest misuse of admin tools it is possible to imagine. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Could I please, for once, be responsible for my own actions? If you're blocked and then evade your block to continue editing (by, say, hopping IP addresses), you are a sock. For some bizarre reason I wasn't aware of a discussion had on this talk page in December 2014 stating that this one talk page, was an exception to this long standing rule.

If somebody had pinged me or messaged me earlier, I would have been more than happy to correct my error (and have done). I've no opinion on the original block. The ring on my finger isn't 'one to rule them all'. I am still a human being with their own agency. Please treat me as such. Panyd 12:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You blocked 217.44.56.219 and then complain that he/she didn't contact you quietly to get unblocked. How did you expect him/her to do that? Why couldn't you just quietly unblock and leave a message on his/her talk page saying what you had done? Who is your post addressed to anyway? And since you say there is no socking, what is your motive about coming here and talking about people who sock?

In relation to myself, please do not make me responsible for other people's actions. When I sat down at this computer on Friday the IP was 81.157.95.83. By Sunday it was 86.171.246.74. Today it may be something else again.

I try to AGF, but it seems to me that your intervention is a spoiler for Jimbo when he comes to decide whether to undo what is obviously a very bad block. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I was specifically addressing you, who linked to the discussion on Jimmy's talk page that clarified the issue. It's unfair to expect me to know about a discussion that happened 5 months ago, and it's very unfair to the IP user to not do everything you can to remedy the situation. I don't check Jimmy's talk page daily, so there was no way of knowing I'd made an error before I looked today.

I posted to clarify how I came to perform the action that I did (which may actually help others who also haven't read a 5 month old post to not make the same mistake), but also to please ask other users to not constantly insinuate that my actions somehow reflect on my husband. If I screw up, that's on me. Apparently I screwed up.

I'm not sure what 'spoiler for Jimbo' means. It was a block made in error. So I fixed it. That about sums it up. Panyd 13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrators are supposed to be au fait with the policy they administer. You are now saying that I am supposed to be 217.44.56.219's minder. Why don't you do something useful, like examining the circumstances of the original block to see if it was justified? Jc3s5h is now rushing round removing references and changing consensus versions to his own pet versions. To get himself into this position he accused 156.61.250.250 of synthesis and original research. Let's compare his/her edit with the references supplied:

Article: Common Era. Edit date 14:13, 27 May 2015.

Removed "although scholars today generally agree that he miscalculated by a small number of years."

Source :

Now the Cyrillan table would expire in A.D. 531, and Dionysius simply provided it with a new continuation covering the years 532 - 627. In front of this table he placed the last 19 year cycle of Cyrillus which was thus rescued from oblivion. But here Dionysius introduced a change of far - reaching consequences. The last cycle of Cyrillus covered the Anno Diocletiani 228 - 247 (or A.D. 512 - 531) whereas the first cycle of Dionysius referred to the Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi 532 - 550.

In his letter to Petronius Dionysius explained that he did not want to use his Easter table to perpetuate the memory of an impious persecutor of the Church, but preferred to count and denote the years from the incarnation of our Lord, in order to make the foundation of our hope better known and the cause of the redemption of man more conspicuous.

Source - deadlink

Source :

The Christian era is reckoned from the birth of Jesus and based upon the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus, who, in preparing Easter tables in A.D. 525, said: "We have chosen to note the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ." The date established was at least four years too late, however, for by this reckoning Herod the Great, under whom Jesus was born, died in 4 B.C.

Article Dionysius Exiguus:

Dionysius is best known as the inventor of the Anno Domini era, which is used to number the years of both the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar. He used it to identify the several Easters in his Easter table, but did not use it to date any historical event.

Added:

A complete Easter cycle consists of 532 years and begins in a leap year. Dionysius was unaware of the 532 - year repeating period, but he was aware of the cycle of 95 years over which the date of Easter will usually repeat, and he understands that it is the clash with the four - year leap year cycle which invalidates it after a long period. He listed Easter dates for the remaining seven years of the current 95 - year cycle and then named the first year of the new cycle as AD 532 instead of 248 of Diocletian and the Martyrs because he wanted to count from the Incarnation.

Source page 54:

It is interesting to notice that Dionysius was honest enough to draw Bishop Petronius' attention to the fact that the new continuation of the Cyrillan 95 year period did not constitute an Easter cycle in the true sense of the word. Like the Cyrillan period it was simply a succession of 19 year periods each of which were cyclic with respect to the epact and the date of NISAN xiv, but unable to bring either the concurrentes dies or the date of Easter Sunday back to their initial values, for the simple reason that the days of the week follow a 7 year period which is not a part of period of 95 years. Thus, without mentioning it, and presumably without intending to do so, Dionysius had pointed to a weakness of his own system from which the Cursus Paschalis of Victor of Aquitaine did not suffer. It is all the more remarkable that he never mentioned the 532 year cycle at all.

Added:

However, he did not know exactly when the incarnation was (nobody knows). This is evident from his comments in Argumentum XV of his Liber de paschate sive cyclus paschalis. He gives the date of the Annunciation as Sunday, 25 March and the interval to birth as 271 days. He gives the birthday as 25 December, but 271 days from 25 March is 20 December. He then says Christ was born on Tuesday, 20 December (this Argumentum may not have been penned by Dionysius personally). The date of Sunday, 25 March implies he considered Christ to have been born in 4 BC, which is the date accepted by the majority of scholars.

Source :

And right from then on until the birth of the Lord and Saviour, the day becomes shorter than the night. From March 25 and until December 25, the days number 271. And that number of days after our Lord Jesus Christ was conceived on Sunday March 25, our Lord Christ was born on Tuesday December 20 ...

And that number of days after his birth took place on a Tuesday, he suffered death on a Friday: he was born on December 25 and suffered death on March 25 ...

However, the days of the week are inconsistent with the numbering of years since the incarnation: the year numbers closest to 0 yielding a Sunday for March 25 are Julian date (-0003, March, 25) and Julian date (0003, March, 25) as can be seen easily from the table above and also from . (We use the astronomical numbering of years .., -0001, 000, +0001, .. for which the formula of is always valid).

If you want to be fair to the IP user you can lift the block yourself. You have second mover advantage. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly counsel against doing anything for second mover advantage. If an admin action is correct you should be able to convince your peers that it is correct. Using admin access to perform actions known or suspected to be contentious could be grounds to lose that access. Jehochman 17:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Having read the evidence, what makes you think the unblock would be contentious? 86.145.50.7 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Silence. The following header just about sums it up:

"This Kinda reminds me of 1984..."

Quoting from Jehochman's RfA:

I tracked down the unblocking admin, User:Eagle 101, on IRC and he patiently explained that blocking users isn't our goal and that it's much more satisfying to help them adjust. The user has turned into a productive editor. Getting angry with people doesn't help much. I've learned the importance of trying to be constructive and find common ground whenever possible. Even when requesting a siteban for a long term disruptive editor, I tried to be polite to them and explain what they would need to do to get themselves unbanned. Blocking and banning aren't as good as convincing an editor to follow site standards ... Our goal is never to block somebody. No, we want them to stick around and make valuable contributions.

I more or less missed all the drama but since a comment I made a while back has come into play here, I just wanted to weigh in and say that while I do request that we be more tolerant than normal on this page, particularly when people are bringing complaints to me, I also request that trolls not be given an infinite soapbox for harassment of me or others. This means judgment calls will have to be made sometimes, and I think there's no reason to have any drama about them. If you think a block was premature for this page, then revert it. If you think someone really really needs a block, then block them. That's all. No need for good people to get too worried about any of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. Can I just summarise what went on here? Doug Weller edited Common Era at 12:16 on 25 May. 156.61.250.250 edited it at 08:38, 08:40, 08:42, 08:57, and 09:53 the following morning. At 09:55 Jc3s5h reverted under edit summary No consensus among scholars about why Dionysius Exigius chose the year he did. In that case he should have made that clear in the article instead of reinstating the words "although scholars today generally agree that he miscalculated by a small number of years", which is unsourced original research and is in any event untrue.

At 10:57 156.61.250.250 removed the incorrect statement and followed up with minor edits at 11:06 and 11:08. At 11:16 Jc3s5h added the incorrect statement a second time and at 15:01 156.61.250.250 removed it a second time. At 15:28 Doug Weller reversed 156.61.250.250's correction, which he described as having been made in "good faith", thus adding the incorrect information a third time. At 11:23 on 27 May 156.61.250.250 removed the incorrect statement a third time and emphasised in the edit summary that it was being removed because it was wrong. Minor edits followed at 11:25, 11:30, 11:32, 11:33 and 11:54.

Having been notified that the information was wrong one would have thought that Jc3s5h would have discussed on the talk page before attempting to re - add it, but instead added it a fourth time at 13:56, removing 156.61.250.250's referenced edit, including the source provided, which he claimed was original research. Instead of claiming the material was original research and removing it together with its accompanying reference the editor should have opened a discussion on the talk page explaining why he considered a referenced edit was original research. At 14:13 156.61.250.250 pointed out this error and removed the incorrect information a fourth time.

At 15:00 Doug Weller removed the sourced information, including the source, repeating the claim that it was original research. Once again, he should not have removed a source without discussing on the talk page what he proposed to do. At 15:01 Doug Weller added a reference and at 12:04 on 28 May 156.61.250.250 added a further reference. Then at 12:11 Jc3s5h reverted saying there was no consensus to include the material. So at that point we had the "BR" of the "BRD" cycle, and the next step, if any further amendments were to be made, would have been to open a discussion on the talk page. But no discussion was opened, because everyone was satisfied with the wording as it then stood.

At 12:25, Doug Weller made a completely unnecessary post to Future Perfect's talk page: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#What do you think. Future Perfect did not respond but issued a block at 14:55. If you need any further information before coming to your decision please let me know.

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'm going to try and bring Future Perfect into the discussion by following the instructions which he has printed at the top of his talk page. 86.163.126.17 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And I have blocked this latest IP (86.163.126.17) for block evasion. This IP user (normally on stative IP 156.61.250.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) knows perfectly well what he was blocked for (continuation of the same behaviour for which he was blocked in the same way, on the same IP, several times previously). If he wants to make an unblock request, he can do so in the normal way, from his permanent IP, like everybody else. I won't be available for any further discussion on this page and would ask everybody to revert further block-evading postings if they should occur. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)