Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive57

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Banned User:Wiarthurhu asking for lifting of his community ban[edit]

User:Wiarthurhu has contacted me by email to ask whether his community ban could be lifted. He was banned after exhausting the community's patience after several months of incivility, personal attacks and disruptive behavior. The discussion of his ban can be found here. Wiarthurhu's email proposes a set of conditions he feels are reasonable to accompany the lifting of the ban and which he agrees to abide by. I have listed these below verbatim - although this technically allows a potential breach of the fifth condition he lays down, any discussion of undoing a community ban has to take place in the open and I see no other way to fairly discuss this proposal.

I am an involved party having blocked Wiarthurhu before for WP:POINT violations. My personal opinion is these conditions are not acceptable given the user's past behavior, but might with modification by us be the basis for lifting the ban. Obviously this is the broader community's decision.

Thanks, Gwernol 21:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


  • I do have a problem with all of the authors listed on my rfC
  • I have very few problems with anybody else anywhere else on WP as long as I don't reference anything these above editors have done.
  • I agree to a three month self-imposed block on any article ever touched by any of the editors listed on the rfC, including talk pages
  • user wiarthurhu and all associated pages and records are deleted
  • I get another username which will not be disclosed to the above editors, some who have shown a pattern of searching everywhere I've ever been and attacking both my material and myself. The terms of this user agreement will not be disclosed to the above parties, who will assume that I do not exist, and I will provide no reason for them to believe that I still exist as a WP user. If detected, you can terminate this agreement.
  • I will cease to worry about the sort of things you folks have been tasked with fixing such as bullying behavior, or inaccurate content. Therefore, if challenged, I will defer. If ticked off, I will remain silent. It is no longer my job, it's the job of admins to enforce civility and factual correctness until WP rules are changed otherwise.

Can we give this a 1 week trial?

According to WP rules, a ban can be lifted if the user agrees to change behavior. I believe the above rules of engagement will eliminate all cases of conflict.


I am willing to assume good faith and believe that he wants to change. I would support a second chance for him, but he must realize he is on a very short leash. If this is refused by the community, however, he could take it to the arbitration committee. Cowman109Talk 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As the dispute in question was beyond simply a user dispute but involved repeated violations of content guidelines and policies including WP:POINT, WP:RS, and WP:V, I am uncomfortable giving the user a fresh start unless these issues are addressed. The user still seems to believe the dispute is limited to "problems" between editors, and not incompatibilities with his edits and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If the proposal is accepted as offered, the user will simply run amok of other editors and the processes we have observed over the last few weeks will be repeated. --Mmx1 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't say I care much for "user wiarthurhu and all associated pages and records are deleted", beyond the normal right to vanish I can't see why we'd grant this user any special favours. --pgk(talk) 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm deferring my comments until I see what others like Tony Sidaway or Cyde have to say on the subject. Beyond that, Wiarthurhu has been warned plenty of times that his behavior would either end up in an ArbCom case or a permaban, so he really can't say that he hasn't been warned. I personally warned him of this fact several times, and that didn't stop him from personal attacks or incivility. Perhaps I'll have more to say later, but for now, I'm at a loss for words. CQJ 05:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought ... How about if all that is initially promiced is that he is allowed to edit under the conditions he has set out except that he edits as an anon - which differs from his current position in that it won't be violating his ban. A month from now he can provide a list of his edits and it can be decided whether or not to grant him a user name or not. Just a thought. WAS 4.250 10:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've had about twelve hours to sleep, eat, and think about this. I think it's obvious to me that Wiarthurhu has a problem with all of the authors listed on his RfC, particularly because some of them (not all of them) tried to get him to edit within the rules several times. I think part of the problem that Wiarthurhu cites was created by Wiarthurhu himself, especially by the creation of the now deleted Wikipedia strategy article and repeated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations time and time again. I saw the problem in WikiProject Automobiles brewing long before he was banned, about the time our mediation at F-14 Tomcat ended, and I didn't interject or start looking for things until the second and third MedCab cases were filed.
Wiarthurhu's references to these editors who he has a problem with are part of the problem itself. He has referred to the editors joining the RfC in a very negative tone, to the point of crossing the WP:CIVIL line, even to the point where some of his comments are within the scope of WP:NPA. He repeatedly has made comments along these lines in reference to Mmx1, ApolloBoy, and Karrmann at least, even going as far to call them Wiki-bullies and their supposed interference with him "evidence of Gang activity on Wikipedia".
If Wiarthurhu is to come back to Wikipedia, I strongly oppose deletion of his userspace and his associated records on the grounds that he's shown the same type of behavior in two separate disputes in two unrelated content areas against two groups of editors. What happens when the third or fourth group runs afoul of his intent? Further, Wiarthurhu has agreed to follow rules or suggested actions before which he's broken, and allowing him to create another name and dissappear from the radar would not be a prudent course of action, in my honest opinion. I don't think that he would follow a three month block of any article that these editors have touched, including talk pages, because if he was capable of self-restraint, I don't think he would have been permablocked in the first place. I don't mean that as a personal attack, either. Wiarthurhu has brokered "cease-fires" and peace agreements before, but when the other person doesn't play the game as he wants it played, then all hell breaks loose and more conflict comes to light.
Wiarthurhu has not been attacked here. To the contrary, it is usually him doing the attacking on other editors, especially ApolloBoy and Mmx1. Karrmann has also been a recent target of Wiarthurhu's scathing wit in addition, albeit Karrmann has also done a bit of pot-stirring in this case as well (for which he's been warned to cease). And, if Wiarthurhu's material and edits are called into question, it is because of the quality of his edits, not the fact that he makes them in the first place. So again, I strongly disagree with the community allowing him to get another username under the pretenses of non-disclosure.
Now, with that said, I would be in favor of Wiarthurhu coming back and being allowed to edit again, but not under the conditions which he proposes, and on a very, and I mean very short leash. I will pause here to save my contribution, and then I will continue in a moment. CQJ 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I propose.
  1. Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu and the editors listed on his RfC agree that they'll mutually avoid each other except through an interlocutor, a mediator, or a neutral third party for a period of no less than three months. Violation of this condition will result in a 72 hour block for any violating party, Wiarthurhu or otherwise.
  2. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
  3. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
  4. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.

If Wiarthurhu is honestly sincere about becoming a better editor, and can change his Wiki-ways to conform with our standards, practices, the Trifecta, and Foundation goals, then I have no issue with allowing him to return under these pretenses. If he is not, then he shouldn't be allowed back, as the way it stands right now, there is more than enough evidence that I've seen to support a community permablock without question. CQJ 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who signed the RFC, and peripherally involved but not closely enough to be emotional about it, I think his proposal is missing the point. Regardless of whether some of the RFCers were more active and emotional, Wiarthurhu's fundamental problem is not that he's being wikistalked. The username change won't help with that, and will help obscure the user history. If he's really willing to reform, he can do it under that username just fine as far as I care. If other editors or admins do start really wikistalking him then that would be a separate issue to be dealt with later, but I hope and suspect that if he does in fact reform he will have very few problems. Georgewilliamherbert 00:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu has e-mailed me, stating that he agrees to CQJ's terms, but the issue of him retaining his username or not still lies in question. Should he just use his current account, or should he be allowed to use a new one if his account is unblocked? Cowman109Talk 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I am unblocking Wiarthurhu shortly given confirmation that he accepts the terms CQJ stated above, and CQJ also said he will help keep an eye on Wiarthurhu to get him back on his feet (I guess being a mentor would be the word). I have also suggested that he follows the one revert rule and that if he feels he is being harassed, to come to me or another administrator about it instead of responding in the interest of not sparking more fights. His account will remain under the same name. Cowman109Talk 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked him per CQJ's terms:
  1. Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu and the editors listed on his RfC agree that they'll mutually avoid each other except through an interlocutor, a mediator, or a neutral third party for a period of no less than three months. Violation of this condition will result in a 72 hour block for any violating party, Wiarthurhu or otherwise.
  2. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
  3. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
  4. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.

I have asked Wiarthurhu to come to CQJ or me if he has any difficulties. It would be best to keep an eye on him. Cowman109Talk 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely upset that (as one of the aggrieved parties) the first I get to hear about this is when I see the 'unbanned' notice pops up on Wiarthurhu's talk page in 'my watchlist'. I should have been given notice - and given the opportunity to at least say something about the terms and conditions before the unbanning - why did nobody tell me about this via my Talk page or something? I believe unbanning this user after so little time is a serious mistake. Whilst he may be out of my hair for a while longer, I don't see anything in the restrictions imposed upon him that prevents him from terrorizing another neighbourhood as he has in the past with Aircraft and Automobiles. Giving him a fresh identity would just make that even harder to recognise if/when it does happen again. Notably, you are requiring me (an innocent party in this) to involve interlocutors or face a ban myself! I edit widely in Wikipedia - the odds of running into this guy again are rather high and I'm not going to risk a week long ban because of him. I have never been consulted about these terms - nor do I particularly think them appropriate. To expect me to abide by them without my prior agreement is asking a lot. IMHO, Wiarthurhu should remain banned forever - the destruction he has already caused to the encyclopedia in terms of wasted productivity and in people forced to take Wikibreaks in order to avoid the stree by far exceeds all of the contributions he is ever likely to make. We gave the guy a one week ban and he was back causing trouble within a day of it being lifted. Now we're telling him that even an 'indefinite' ban is over in a few weeks. We should have stuck with the ban for at least a year. I'm most unhappy at this decision - and especially how it was (not) publicised to the aggrieved parties. SteveBaker 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Steve's got a point. We really didn't consult him or any of the other editors that were involved in the situation beyond our involvement at AN/I and our fact finding, especially on the caveat that any editor that doesn't use an interlocutor can get nailed equally. With that said (warning to other editors: CQJ's infamous use of numbering points follows):
  1. I have already voiced the opinion that this situation could develop negatively for the encyclopedia. If it does, then we'll take appropriate action when and if the time is necessary.
  2. I agree that everyone involved should have had the chance to comment on the conditions of Wiarthurhu's return, especially when punitive action can be taken against a group of editors. However, given the discussion that I've had with Cowman in regards to the situation, and the fact that I'm now partially accountable for Wiarthurhu's actions since I've volunteered to be his "mentor", I will do my best to make sure that this agreement doesn't come back to hurt anyone within the scope of WP:IAR or the Trifecta, and that includes Steve and all of the other editors who listed in the RfC as well as Wiarthurhu himself. But I will not tolerate anyone, neither Wiarthurhu, nor any other editor involved in this dispute (and I won't mention names) spreading incivility and personal attacks on Wikipedia, and those editors know who they are.

As such, I propose modification of the "terms" to the following, and I encourage enforcement of these modified terms unless there is a grave reason to stick with the terms already agreed to. Saving contribs, copying the terms, be back in a moment. CQJ 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
  2. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
  3. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.

Is this acceptable? CQJ 18:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know if I am in full support of this. He would often treat me like I don't belong on Wikipedia just because I am 14, and claimed that he is a better editer than me simply because hes older, without even looking over my edit history. He would take pictures of toys, and plaster them all over Wikipedia in places they don't belong, then called me a "Prolific teen vandal" when I took them down (Though I left them where they belonged, like in the Johnny Lightning or slot car articles) I am sorry, but I do not want him to come back.he was a major headache to all of the Wikiproject automobiles, and I felt a LARGE weight was taken off my shoulders when he was banned. I also don't like the idea of giving me a week long ban for getting into a conflict with the guy. I get severly pissed when people claim that I am not as good of an editer as them just because I am 14. If you look at my edit history, you can tell that I am up with par with the older editors. The guys would do crap and age discriminate me, and call me a prolific vandal when I would take down any of his toy car pictures, or remove his POV from articles. I also had a large headace with him combating my liking for the Ford Taurus. In a deleted article, I wrote an entry for the Taurus, which I admit, sounded a little pro Taurus, and he acted like it was pure POV, and rewrote it with stuff like "Many people would be su[rised to hear that this low key fleet special sold 7 million units, but it did" and stuff like that. He claimed he toned it down, but instead, he just turned it around ot make it all anti-Taurus, thus not solving anything. He also based his behavior off of a "nice list" If you were on his nice list, he would treat you like a person, if not, he treated you like crap. And just look at whot he would do with RfCs and AfDs, he would totally interupt, making it sound like none of our opinions mattered. I am sorry, but I am NOT in favor of bringing him back. If it were up to me, I wouldn't just block him, I would set his computer on fire too. Karrmann 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I forgot to change some things in there - basically what I mean to say is that Wiarthurhu is the one who will be watched, and he is agreeing to avoid you guys for the time being while remaining under the same account should he be watched. Others indeed should not be subject to blocking for this, but nonetheless provoking him is innappropriate and people will be warned if they do so. So, here's a revision of the terms.
  1. Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu agrees that he will avoid the other editors he has had trouble with in the past and will speak with them through a mediator.
  2. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in another block for Wiarthurhu.
  3. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
  4. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.
  5. Also, other editors are warned to not provoke Wiarthurhu, and warnings will be handed out if that occurs.

There, I admit that I somehow completly overlooked the application of the earlier agreement towards the other parties involved - I guess I was too busy focused on the Wiarthurhu part to realize that. Does this sound more appropriate? Cowman109Talk 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me be frank here. I understand your concerns, and Steve's concerns, and everyone else's concerns as to allowing Wiarthurhu to come back. The behavior you cite above was taken into consideration when Wiarthurhu was blocked in the first place. He was warned for WP:CIVIL violations when calling you a "Prolific teen vandal". We understand why you were making the edits that you were making, and believe me, I'm very familiar with the timelines and who started what, who said what, and when they said it.
Cowman's modified things above (while I was writing this...grrrrr). Wiarthurhu's essentially agreed to leave you guys alone as much as possible, and if he can't, then he's supposed to get a hold of Cowman or I and we're supposed to come help out. At the first hint of impropriety, then we'll cross the bridge of further action. Until then, well, I'd suggest that you not state that you're going to set another contributor's computer on fire, regardless of how you feel. Relax. The situation is well at hand, and neither Cowman or myself or any other administrator or editor that cares about this encyclopedia as deeply as we do will allow things to continue in the manner in which they have in the past. CQJ 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Since Wiarthurhu is to be allowed to return (against my better judgement...but whatever) - I have no problem with the present (or previous) requirements on both him and his former victims. My main problem was that I had not been consulted - and now I have, that's OK. For Wiarthurhu to have any chance at a fresh start, far from the people whom he's upset so badly, it is obvously necessary that none of us inflame the situation by chasing after him - so "don't feed the trolls", and "if you do you are in trouble too" are not a bad set of principles (so long as you tell the hypothetical troll feeders first!). Since Cowman and CQJ are both going to be on watch for bad behavior, the rest of us should be able to relax and pretend that life is still good (and if it's not good - it'll get good again within the time it takes someone to type the word "blocked" in the right place). You guys are definitely going the extra mile for Wiarthurhu - I sure hope he appreciates what you are doing for him and adds more value to the encyclopedia than he subtracts from it! Let's all hope this works out. Thanks guys! SteveBaker 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu contacted me on YouTube, with 3 messages, two that asked is I am "That evil genious kid from Wikipedia", and the other was asking where I got a Taurus commercial from. I think this may be in violation of his agreement, espcailly because he called me an evil geneious. Karrmann 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyking desysopped[edit]

Recently it was brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee that administrator Everyking (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has posted to an external site in the process of trying to determine the contents of inappropriate material, sensitive personal information, deleted from an article. Everyking looked up the deleted material using his administrator privileges, and offered to post the deleted content publicly. He stated:

I looked for you, but when you look at deleted revisions it doesn't show you the changes (or if so I don't know how to access them). I guess I could just post the full text and you could work out the differences yourself. [1]

It is already known that the user who posts at that forum under the name "everyking" is in fact Everyking because he has confirmed it in email to the Arbitration Committee previously. We view this as a serious misjudgment and a betrayal of the trust the community has given him in adminship. As such, Everyking has been immediately desysopped. Dmcdevit·t 23:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Fred Bauder 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is shocking and I call for it to be overturned. I didn't actually post anything (being worried that SlimVirgin might get pissed) and even if I did I don't see how it could be a betrayal of anything. Everyking 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Your cooperation with Wikipediareview is questionable enough. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You may not like it that I post there, but since my speech is severely restricted on WP itself I choose to post my views there instead. It violates no policy to do so, and I don't believe it would have been in violation of any policy even if I had posted the text there. In any case I had not posted and about two or three days had passed in which I did not deliberately didn't follow up on it because I thought better of it. Everyking 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking that, Zoe. Plus, there he had once advocated unblocking Amorrow. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember ever arguing for him to be unblocked on WP, and I certainly wouldn't want that now. Everyking 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I should think that advocating the unblocking of a user is not grounds for any sort of sanction, else we would have had to toss Danny out for advancing the notion that User:Mike Garcia could be reformed. Phil Sandifer 23:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Garcia was bad. Morrow is scary bad. --Golbez 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is moot because I do not think he should be allowed to edit. I'm well aware of his harassment of our female editors. I did argue he should be allowed to post his crap on WR, because I support the notion of it as a free speech forum, but that is not pertinent. Everyking 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
In this case he was cooperating with banned troll Wordbomb to uncover sensitive deleted information. Thatcher131 (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Tell me how. Everyking 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The legal implications of allowing someone who is willing to post personal information removed from an article by an administrator access to sensitive deleted content should be clear. You made it clear that your continued adminship was a liability to the project. Dmcdevit·t 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What the? Personal information? I didn't even know what the content was. I still don't know. I sure as hell would never post anybody's personal information. Everyking 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it clear that EK recognized what the nature of the deleted content was? Or are we now adopting a policy against posting delete pages, period? Phil Sandifer 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a reason personal information is removed and viewing of it is blocked. Legal reasons. Everyking clearly attempted to get around those reasons. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I explicitly did not know and made that clear in my comment (I stated that I couldn't determine the differences in the revisions). Now I gather that it was personal information, and I take offense at the notion that I would be willing to post that. Nothing in the thread was there to tell me it was personal information. Everyking 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree with Everyking. This seems to me to be a startling failure of WP:AGF. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I will say, given the clearly stated suspicion on the page that the subject was a Wikipedia editor, some more care might have been in order. But honestly, I'm skeptical that this is in and of itself grounds for an emergency desysopping. It seems more like a case of the arbcom seeing an opportunity to justify a penalty they've wanted to put out for quite a while. (After all, Everyking's willingness to support real life harassment of users should hardly be news to anyone who has followed my own case.) Phil Sandifer 00:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That Everyking was willing to "post the full text" of a deleted page without knowing why it was deleted or what it contained is somewhat worrisome. Prodego talk 00:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
But did not actually post anything. This is a critical point. What I read there gave me the impression the admin action was done wrongfully, and I was at first willing to help out, assuming that to do so would be OK with policy, but then decided not to because I was worried there could nevertheless be ramifications (as there were anyway, obviously). Everyking 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you said anywhere you wouldn't post the content of deleted pages ever? Or apologized for saying you were willing to do so? That would certainly be a start, but without any assurance from you that you won't ever do this, your desysopping should stand as you are a liability. pschemp | talk 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't know there was anything wrong with doing so. But given the trouble it has apparently caused, I will make that assurance now. Everyking 00:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you please directly address pschemp's questions? She did not ask if you knew there was anything wrong, and your assurance is in response to a sentence. I'm not picking hairs here, please answer the questions. Teke (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This is outrageous. Retrieving/posting deleted material is a basic right under the GFDL (but one that should not be exercised if the material was deleted for legal reasons or contains sensitive detail, of course.) When are people going to understand that Wikipedia does not own content? It's not OK to copy something I (for example) write into other Wikipedia articles just because I posted it here, without giving me attribution. It's not OK to accept my (for example) contributions under the GFDL then delete them and deny the Commons access to them. What if another site wants to publish it? What right have we got to deny the use of GFDL material to anybody? Absolutely none. I am genuinely shocked and outraged at the suggestion that Wikipedia has any right whatsover to material posted here above and beyond the rights assigned to it under the GFDL. --kingboyk 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - Wikipedia would be hard pressed to persue legal action against someone who posted deleted page content. Hence the lack of takedown effort on Wikitruth. However, the GFDL does not constitute an obligation to make content available, and the GFDL offers no protection outside of legal protection - whether someone is an admin on a website is wholly outside its purview. Phil Sandifer 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The answer to both of the questions is no. However, I assure everyone that I will never again offer to post the content of a deleted page anywhere (much less actually do so), no matter what the content. Everyking 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess the basic lesson to come away with from this is don't get too cozy with banned trolls anywhere. --Cyde Weys 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a gross and obvious violation of Administrator trust. Let us all remember that we have the power to do great harm, and we must resist the temptation to do so at all times. Private information is not ours to disclose; we only have administrator powers for one purpose: to improve Wikipedia. We cannot usually do that by publicly compromising private information. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Many administrators including, if I'm not mistaken, you at some point, Tony, have offered to post the content of deleted pages to those interested under certain conditions. Everyking made an offer to post the content of a certain deleted page and then thought better of it. Haukur 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not disclose anything. How is it a violation of trust? Everyking 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You offered to do so. That you didn't follow through is beside the point: you made the offer. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
What does the offer matter compared to the act? Isn't the question whether the material is made available? And it was not made available, because I decided not to make it available. And furthermore, the offer is merely a helpful gesture. I thought going through with it might anger SlimVirgin but never imagined that it could get me desysopped, because I never imagined it was a violation of anything. As it turns out, I didn't do it and still got desysopped. Everyking 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The disturbing thing is this, as said by you "I didn't know there was anything wrong with doing so." If you weren't capable of understanding that revealing deleted personal information was wrong at the time you made the offer, then you shouldn't be trusted with such information. It shouldn't take a desysopping to make you understand what was morally wrong with that offer. pschemp | talk 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You're missing a key detail: I didn't know it was personal information. I would never have made the offer if I had known that. I take a very strong stand against compromising personal information. Everyking 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, you're also a liar. We know from long experience what your attitude is to "compromising personal information". Rebecca 01:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
With such long experience, you should be able to recall a few examples to support this claim against my integrity. Everyking 01:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I could post that charming email you sent me after the WR folks started stalking me, or the congratulatory post you made to WR about Kelly Martin after the same, or...shall I go on? Rebecca 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see that e-mail, actually... Phil Sandifer 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You offered to post deleted content without even knowing what it was? That's even worse.pschemp | talk 01:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you read what I wrote originally on the board this would be obvious. I clearly stated that I did not know what the content of the deleted edit was, and I was offering to post the full text so others could figure out what it was. And when we are talking about what is better and what is worse, we should be mindful that I decided not to do anything at all. Everyking 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I did read it. Nowhere there did you say you weren't going to do it. pschemp | talk 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You're missing a key detail No, you're obscuring the key detail, given that the subject is your powers of judgment -- or lack thereof: you offered, without investigation, understanding, or thought of the consequences and/or liability -- to reveal something which had been deleted. Your lack of judgment being in question on the issue of whether you should be allowed to have powers that can be abused, it's perfectly relevant to discuss the things you say you're going to do, not just those which you succeed in carrying out. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice rhetorical twist there: "succeed in carrying out". What do you suppose kept me from succeeding in this diabolical mission, so that several days passed in which I posted no deleted content, until this desysopping hit me like a bolt from the blue? Everyking 01:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Rhetorical twist? No, a reality check. And given your history of nitpicking wikilawyering, to accuse someone else of twisting words is a bit rich. Project much? --Calton | Talk 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Come on, man, tell me why I didn't "succeed in carrying it out". Everyking 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest everyone abstain from replying for now, since this discussion is rapidly deteriorating. Prodego talk 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Prodego. Nothing is to be settled here, at least until the emails and other communications stop flying. This was a notice; while commentation is encouraged I think Everyking and all the other users need to walk away for a day. Teke (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't say that, I just abstained from replying to the thread any further. Everyking 01:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the situation at hand, I do want to remind everyone that deleted content - especially deleted revisions of an article - are deleted for a reason, and that special concern needs to be taken when viewing and discussing the material. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Special concern, yes, but withholding GFDL text from the commons if it doesn't contain sensitive info, absolutely not. If Everyking didn't post such info I don't see what the problem is. Furthermore, am I to remove {{user recovery}} from my user page?! --kingboyk 13:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Special concern, definitely. But I do want to point out - again, disregarding the situation at hand - that Wikipedia policy is sometimes more restrictive than outside law. In other words, even though something may be legal, it may be prohibited under Wikipedia policy. However, I do reiterate that I'm not commenting on the situation at hand. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, Wikipedia doesn't own the internet. In the past, deleted content was retrieved and posted elsewhere. The highly controversial Brian Peppers fiasco came to a close when Jimbo deleted the article and the article was transwiki'd in full on the YTMND Wiki, and remains there to this day. There should be no reason why in this case posting deleted content outside Wikipedia is against Wikipedia policy. The content is outside Wikipedia, not in it. Stuff that is unsuitable for Wikipedia isn't to be censored and banned from view by the entire world. What Everyking did may have been wrong morally, but to impose a sanction on him before he actually did it without warning is just as bad. I say resysop him and let the community vote to see if there's a consensus to take him down. I don't think showing deleted content is a breach of trust on us. Rather, I think quite the opposite. Refusing to allow people to view things, especially if they wrote them, is a breach of trust. I don't know exactly the situation completely, but I do think that there should have been less unilateral action. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, but the question of a warning, or some sort of prior contact, hasn't been mentioned before. There were three days that passed between my suggestion and the "emergency" desysopping. If somebody believed even after that interval that I still might post the content, and felt strongly that I should not, then the obvious first option should've been to simply say to me: "Hey, in case you were still thinking of doing that, please don't; I believe it may contain personal information." In this case the response from me would have been: "I wasn't planning to post it, and now that I know it contains personal information I am very happy that I did not." Everyking 05:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The deleted content apparently contained personal information. In the past, such personal information has been used to harass editors, etc. Revealing that information would not be like letting an editor simply view a bad vanity article he wrote, it would be exposing rather private information to some persons who have in the past used such information in threatening ways. —Centrxtalk • 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
We should be glad that this did not occur, then. Everyking offered to post the contents of a deleted article, which is a common enough occurrence, but as he says, he did not realise that it contained personal information. The key point is that the personal information was not posted. The over-reaction is akin to taking away someone's driving licence for speeding when a driver says that he will travel at a certain speed. Even if he is aware that the speed limit has been lowered on that road, there is no act to warrant punishment. Seems to me that policy is being made on the fly here.
I'm all in favour of desysopping for misbehaviour, but let's leave it until we have a clear case, because if we start desysopping for what people think but don't do, then we might as well say goodbye to a whole swag of admins. --Jumbo 06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

bainer's reply to thread[edit]

I ought to mention that I also responded to that thread, having checked the contents of the deleted revision. I made this reply, saying that the revision was deleted because it contained "what appears to be personally identifiable information". I did not say what that information was. My intent was to establish that the revision was properly deleted, and to defend the admin in question.

On one or two other occasions in the past I have responded to posts on Wikipedia Review, having checked deleted revisions, with the intention of defending other admins' actions. I have not actually publicly disclosed the contents of any deleted revisions. I ask the community to advise whether these actions were acceptable. --bainer (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should definitely discontinue that practice, though I don't think any action should be taken against you in the circumstances, since you were apparently motivated by loyalty to WP and your colleagues. I can't say the same for Everyking. We have every reason to lose confidence in an admin who would even contemplate posting deleted information on another site. It's not a matter of whether there's a specific policy against it; it should go without saying - a matter of basic common sense and team loyalty. Everyking is entitled to have certain ideals of free speech, or whatever they are, but if he is at all inclined to pursue them to assist Wikipedia Review then the honourable course for him is to avoid any conflict of interest between his ideals and his corporate loyalties. The way to do that would have been by voluntary relinquishment of his admin powers. This desysopping should not even have been needed. Metamagician3000 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have made the offer just the same on WP itself if the question had come up and nobody else addressed it. There is no "conflict of interest". Everyking 01:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: The signpost will be covering this this week so some names maybe mentioned in the article. ForestH2 t/c 01:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
In this case, I would like to read the article before it is published to ensure that nothing inaccurate is said about me. Everyking 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I'll show you the article when it is done. ForestH2 t/c 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Discontinue the practice? Defending admins on Wikipedia Review, while probably futile, is hardly harmful; if Bainer finds this a useful pursuit, why shouldn't he keep it up? — Dan | talk 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree while I would urge Bainer to excercise caution letting them know why something was deleted might help matters. JoshuaZ 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

... Checking in both the user rights and a log search shows that Everyking still retains his sysop powers. Anomo 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't. My rollback, delete and protect buttons are gone. Everyking 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you check the meta rights log? Desysoppings show up there, not on the local wiki. --Cyde Weys 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I checked the user list and it doesn't show sysop anymore. Anomo 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that nobody get involved with Wikipedia Review in any capacity. It's not even worth it to show up there to try to defend yourself or other Wikipedians. Just ignore them. --Cyde Weys 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As a personal matter I agree because frankly most of the people there are trolls or worse, but if a user or an admin wishes to slum, we shouldn't stop them (I am strongly not endorsing Everyking here. To even think about posting deleted material without talking to the admin who removed it is appalling. To do so for known trolls and banned users is unacceptable). JoshuaZ 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It is a good place to talk about Wikipedia freely if you aren't allowed to do so on-wiki, as in my case. The downside, obviously, is that certain people monitor your every word and look for something to use against you. Everyking 02:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately your action — that is your words — have lost the trust that is necessary for working together, not to mention showing a lack of awareness of possible consequences. If there is a fault with wikipedia, and you can't talk about things that are necessary to talk about, then that should be addressed here, to improve the project. I think you're going to have to build up trust again. Tyrenius 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Almost every administrator who is outspoken or active in any way has lost the trust of a substantial portion of the community. My biggest offense was to offer to do something in ignorance, never mind my decision to not actually do it. Everyking 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
See, if you are that ignorant, you shouldn't be a sysop anyway, however I'm not really buying the ignorance defense. pschemp | talk 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Two and a half years and I seem to have done OK with sysop tools. When the worst thing a person can come up with is that you offered to do something that you in fact refrained from doing, it's almost a compliment. Everyking 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dude we rely on admins being ignorant to get through the day. Aside form that admins are ignorant of all sorts of things. Copyright law. How to do range blocks how to use the whitelist. The fact there is a whitelist. How to close an AFD. What the exact CSD criteria are (they keep changeing for some reason). No admin knows everthing thing.Geni 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If this was a reply to pschemp, pschemp's not a dude :) Anyways, admins are supposed to be rational in every decision they make. I don't really have a stance towards either side, but considering EveryKing has a prior history of blocks, I didn't surprise me that he was desysopped for something like this. How to close an AFD is one of the most basic admin activites. If an admin candidate doesn't know how to do that, I would be surprised if the RFA passed. Admins don't know how to do everything perfectly, but they should have a general idea of what to do in a situation. — The Future 03:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I reserve the right to call anyone dude. In case you forget AFD in it's current form didn't exists when many of us were promoted.Geni 10:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: don't try to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare. Metamagician3000 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The defense that an action was performed in ignorance is hard to take seriously. Everyking was certainly not in ignorance of the fact that he was taking that action apparently on behalf of a community riddled with disruptive, destructive elements. It's impossible to believe that an individual of good judgment would blithely assume all was well with the request, considering the venue. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The people at thge other end could have had no idea what the deleted material was.If it was harmless then there was no need to allow uncertianly that could be used in attacks to continue

I think wikipedia review isn't a good place to criticize wikipedia. There's criticizing to improve and just being anti-wikipedia and wikipedia review is sort of the later. They are really picky on registration and it seems they only allow in vandals and those that they want to corrupt (like wikipedia admins). I don't think it's wrong to complain about wikipedia, it's like complaining about your tap water quality or TV programming... you sort of need it, but you can always want it to be better. Maybe someone can host a wikipedia criticism forum that is more inline with wanting to help wikipedia. I don't want to, though. For those who do, there's lots of free forums like network54 and stuff. Anomo 06:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, well, when you have the arbs putting ten draconian restrictions on what you can say, you tend to relish the opportunity to talk about WP freely, even if you do have to do so among a bunch of people who are broadly anti-Wikipedia. Everyking 06:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if you didn't have such a long history of bullying and personal abuse you wouldn't need the only wiki-restraining-order in the project's history to keep you from doing it. Rebecca 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Rebecca, I'm glad Everyking is desysopped. He seemed to be the worst POV-pusher around at Ashlee Simpson. I think he should be blocked for 1 year, in addition to his desysopping, as is the norm with such ArbCom block decisions. He's not the first - remember Karmafist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - now blocked indefinitely, but still sockpuppetteering. No doubt Everyking will do that here, and we'll have to use ((some template)) to list his sockpuppets. --Langwath 09:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never even seen your user name before. Everyking 09:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a suspicion the Langwath is a troll user. Anyone object to blocking Langwath? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Please go right ahead. A genuine newcomer doesn't jump straight into things like this. AnnH 10:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, well, I would kinda prefer it if he got a warning first. His talk page is still a red link. Everyking 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. Appreciate your openness Everyking, but I don't think that this is a good faith contributor. Starting off by making a taunt against you at such a sensitive time is highly inappropriate and removes any vestige of assumption of good faith I might have against Pelican Shit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Langweth is unblocked after posting an apology here, but please keep an eye out for him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Langwath is blocked again for being a lying vandalising troll. The cluster of sockpuppets I have so far are Langwath; Dukaks; StephenColbert X-Line; Piperuniverse; WolfStar2; WolfStar3. I have absolutely no doubt there are more. DHCP only covers you so far - David Gerard 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is ludicrous. I can see no point to engaging with Wikipedia Review. But there is no reason whatsoever to desysop people on this basis. There is no claim that any confidential, harmful or even just plain deleted information was disclosed. Whatever people might think of Everyking overall is irrelevant to this case. I strongly urge ArbCom to open a case on this and give the matter full consideration instead of what looks like a knee-jerk reaction. The Land 11:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that two ArbCom members are the ones who pushed forth the desysopping, an ArbCom case would be fairly pointless at this point except to satisfy process. Most probably Fred Bauder and Dmcdevit consulted with other ArbCom members secretly and obtained their approval. Captainktainer * Talk 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Doubtful not if they were acting at that speed. 2 arbcom members is less than 20% of the Committee.Geni 12:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Even ArbCom members might benefit from a few days' reflection on the matter. The Land 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with The Land on this issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I support this action, and gave my support in private before the action was taken. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
We're into denying admins the right to freedom of speech now too are we? This is getting beyond a joke. --kingboyk 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think we ever had freedom of speech here? We routinely block users for harrassing and personally attacking other users. Free speech is a government censorship issue. Here on Wikipedia we do what is necessary to foster a productive editing environment, and someone trying to push the limits of "free speech" is liable to get blocked. And frankly, offering to abuse admin tools to aid a banned user is a lot worse than just a "fuck you" anyway. --Cyde Weys 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. This is the first time I have ever said this about the community here- I am disgusted. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the desysopping was an overreaction. What Everyking said was "I guess I could etc." and then, upon further consideration, he didn't. Haukur 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason why Everyking didn't do it wasn't because he had reflected and decided not to, it was because he couldn't get to the material that he wanted to provide to WR. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't even understand your accusation. Why couldn't I "get to the material"? Everyking 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Hummm, after reading this, I wonder what the long ranging implications of this will be, aside from the stern warning to the community in general. One important issue is that it is all a matter of timing. The information was available for some time, and in that time, it could have been cached by a webcrawler (google, answers, whatever), and be available permanetly outside Wikipedia. Or it could have been stored by a visitor and made publicly available (all allowed under GFDL). The conflict here is between the openness at one hand (everybody can at a specific time get all available information and store it off-wiki, regardless of libel, Copyvio, personal information etc), while at the otherhand desysopping for just offering to do the exact same thing. For me at the moment, that does not compute, and I would like to have some input on this from others on the timing aspect before making up my mind on whether the desysopping was good or not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have to set the question somewhat more pointed: If I had stored the information in question on my harddisk between being posted and being deleted and would now make it available externally, it would be ok under GFDL and I would not lose my sysop powers, while if I would use my sysop powers to retrieve the deleted version and make it available, I immediatly would lose my sysop powers? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Kim van der Linde, it is a matter of User:Everyking offering to use his admin tools to assist a banned user to gain access to information. Copyright status of the material is not the issue. FloNight 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And since when has that been an offence, and an offence punishable by summary desysopping? --kingboyk 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Since when has it been an offense to assist a banned user with the use of administrative tools? Since when has murder been illegal? --Cyde Weys 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
depending on the legal system that is quite a complicated question. While you are deciding which legal system you mean you might want to consider why comparing everykings actions to murder is not an entirely logical course.Geni 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so the criteria is the usage of the admin tools. So, if this information is available, it is ok to post that somewhere else under the condition that it is not retrieved using admin tools. Good to know. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Appears to me that Everyking was acting as a surrogate for banned user User:WordBomb. My dealings with WordBomb make me think that EK's actions need a full arbitration case. EK willingness to assist a banned user in general, and WordBomb in particular, needs to be addressed. Knowing what I know about WordBomb, this is broader in scope than EK's use of his admin tools. FloNight 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the case in sufficient detail have an opinion about that. I am more interested in the implications, and especially when information added to wikipedia is under GFDL, and when the same information is not. Because what happens here is that information can be at the same time under GFDL and not, depending on how it was retrieved. That is a legal impossibility. Either it is under GFDL, or it is not. If it is under GFDL, I would think that people can actually request or sue the foundation for it if they want to have it, while we at the same time desysop people for doing the same thing. That just confuses me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Nobody can require the foundation to provide any piece of information simply because it was edited into Wikipedia. The foundation can hardly be required to publish or distribute information to which it does not even hold the copyright simply because another individual has released it under the GFDL. (This ignores the fact that much personal information is not subject to copyright, and that therefore the GFDL has no bearing on its publication.) The Foundation would certainly exercise judgment in releasing deleted revisions. Everyking lost his sysop bit precisely because he appeared uninterested in demonstrating such judgment. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like few, if any, are sad to see Everyking lose the sysop tools. But, the excuse used for removing them was fairly sad. Maybe a generic "exhausting of ArbCom's patience" type reason should be used in cases like these. Friday (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is all this discussion heading? Everyking was emergency desysopped apparently because of a sworn desire to make deleted content available to non-admins. Whilst this is occasionally appropriate, it is most definitely not appropriate to post it to Wikipedia Review. However, Everyking has made clear above that he has no intention to make such content available to non-admins, and unless we doubt his word, why does he not have his sysop bit back? Emergency desysoppings are not permanent unless they get ratified by the ArbCom or under WP:OFFICE, as far as I understand it. - Mark 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I had no "sworn desire", otherwise I would have posted it instead of choosing not to. Everyking 17:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Were you planning on posting the entire GFDL wording, as is required by GFDL, when you posted the deleted information on Wikipedia Review? Or did you not care about the copyright status of the information? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on doing anything, as you can see by the fact that I posted nothing. Everyking 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Presumably because the circumstances of the incident have brought his judgement into question to such an extent that the ArbCom feels his retaining the bit would be a liability to the project? I doubt this can be boiled down to a simple question of promising not to do someting in particular (e.g. not make deleted content available to non-admins); the broader issue is whether someone who considers—even fleetingly—using his sysop tools to help the nice folks at WR can be trusted with access to them. Kirill Lokshin 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I frequently use my admin tools to help people.Geni 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why were assisting an user banned from Wikipedia? WordBomb is not welcome on this site for a very good reason. You should assume good faith towards the admins that blocked WordBomb. WordBomb has openly expressed contempt for Wikipedia. There is no valid reason for your actions. Period. FloNight 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't assist him; how could what I wrote have assisted him? And I don't determine whether I assume good faith just based on whether someone is an admin or is banned; I assume good faith at the outset as a general principle and withdraw the assumption if I see good reason to. Everyking 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Acting as a surrogate for WordBomb by looking at deleted information shows no respect for Wikipedia users and admins that are being harassed by WordBomb and sock/meatpuppets on an ongoing basis . FloNight 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This would be more meaningful if WordBomb had gained something from it. All he got was me saying I looked at it and couldn't determine anything about it. Everyking 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And it didn't occur to you to talk to the blocking admins at all? Do you realize what a lapse in judgement that is? You seem to be saying that you knew that the user had been indefinitely blocked by community consensus and you still assumed good faith without asking the other admins for any input? What about that doesn't strike you as wrong? JoshuaZ 18:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I know that user is blocked, but not how that came to be. I guess I would have said something to SV about it if I was going to actually post it, considering my concern about her reaction was significant enough that I decided not to continue with the matter at all. At the time, however, my assumption was that the content had just been deleted as part of some crackdown against an individual, so I was less concerned; had I known the information was sensitive I would never have even suggested the possibility that I might post it. Everyking 18:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
sensitive information? Haven't been able to find any in there yet.Geni 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
People here tell me there's sensitive personal info in there, but I still have no idea what it is; I'm just assuming they are correct about that. Everyking 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Everyking on this matter. He should not have been punished just because he intended to give out confidential information, which he never actually did. --Ixfd64 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Even "intended" is too strong; I put the offer on the table, thought about it, decided not to. Everyking 18:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure we're all glad that in the end Everyking decided to not start posting said information on WR, that fact that it was ever an option is disturbing. Admins are supposed to be trustworthy. If I started muttering on WR about providing the IP addresses of fellow sysops, I suspect I'd find myself desysoped, uncheckusered, and at the wrong end of an IP block for the forseeable future–and rightly so. From his recent post above, Everyking is displaying at best questionable judgement. You'd been a sysop for a long time–longer than I have. Why did you even have to think about it? Mackensen (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

certianly. Because checkuser was provided on the understanding that you would never give out IPs. Admins frequently provide information about deleted articles.Geni 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
They do? to blocked users? Show me where. pschemp | talk 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple of hours ago someone on IRC asked me to post the text of a page deleted by Dmcdevit. I did. For all I know the person I was talking to is a banned user on enwiki (though I think that's quite unlikely). This happens all the time. As long as the content is harmless it's fine. Everyking was in a dodgy forum and he implied he might post the contents of a page without reviewing it carefully first. That was a mistake. Then he decided not to do it and let the matter drop. That was the right call. Haukur 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Without knowing that the content was sensitive, it seemed just like any case of making the contents of a deleted page available to an interested party, and I'm not aware that's considered a problem. I thought people did that all the time. Everyking 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
While you may not have thought about whether or not the information was sensitive, you should have. There is a difference between providing the contents of a deleted page to an editor (a vanity bio, promotional page, or some sort of facruft, say, that a newbie didn't realize was inappropriate for Wikipedia) and providing the contents of a deleted revision. Deleting individual revisions from a page history is more effort and inconvenience than reverting an edit or deleting a page, and admins only tend to do it when there is a good reason for that extra effort. Straight vandalism gets reverted; revisions are only removed in special, exceptional circumstances.
When any editor asks for a copy of a deleted page revision, it should prompt careful questions and investigation before releasing the material. When a banned sockpuppetting troll (WordBomb) asks for a deleted page revision – surely out of innocent curiosity and a sense of civic duty...*cough* – that should trigger very loud alarm bells in the mind of an admin.
Before offering to release the information – before thinking about releasing the information – you might have asked the deleting admin why the revisions were deleted. That could have cleared things up nicely. Choosing not to release the information not out of respect for another admin's judgement, nor out of respect for the privacy of the involved individuals, nor because you didn't want to be used as a tool of some trolls...but rather because you were "worried that SlimVirgin might get pissed" does not inspire confidence in your ability to handle admin tools.
I've had run-ins with you before over your interactions with other editors, particularly other admins. I've been concerned about your occasional lack of civility. However, I've defended your contributions. I've never suggested that you should be desysopped; I have in fact argued against such suggestions in the past. Aside from a few regrettable mistakes during the Ashlee Simpson edit wars two years ago, I've never seen you misuse your admin privileges. But this is beyond the pale. If the only thing that stops you from handing out deleted page revisions to banned trolls bent on harrassing SlimVirgin and other admins is your fear that you'll piss off SlimVirgin, your judgement is no longer sound. I don't know whether it's because you're mad at Wikipedia, or mad at SlimVirgin, or mad at me (now, at least) or what—but this sort of offer shows a contempt for the Wikipedia community and for your Wikipedia colleagues. You've done a great deal of good here, but I just can't see how you can be trusted with admin privileges now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Out of all this, what you are really saying is that I should have consulted SlimVirgin before suggesting I might post the contents of the page. I have said that, in the unlikely instance that I chose to actually post the contents, I would have said something to her about it first—but this is not good enough for you, I need to consult her before I even make the suggestion. At some point it begins to look like you're grasping at straws here. Everyking 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You completely missed his point. The point is there is a huge difference between deleted revisions and an article that was just deleted for mundane reasons such as meeting the speedy criteria, AfD, etc. Deleted revisions require extra effort and are only done to keep that information away from non admins. The fact that you didn't even know what the information was you were offering to post is a problem, in addition to all the other problems people have noted here. - Taxman Talk 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades did you ever read the deleted edits?Geni 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This reminds of a suggestion I brouhgt up a while ago- to have an open log of what admins accessed what deleted pages when. It might help deal with this sort of situation somewhat. JoshuaZ 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How could this have prevented anything? We'd find out that Everyking looked at the deleted content, a fact we already know. --Conti| 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to not hide non-sensitive deleted articles from non-administrators. Deleting articles because they don't fit editorially should be factored from deleting articles or revisions that have personal information etc. Almost all articles deleted via prod or AFD could be viewable by anyone. Then it would make sense to log viewing articles that truely need to be hidden. Quarl (talk) 2006-09-04 21:17Z
Also stewards can truly delete sensitive edits now, of course. The problem I imagine is that many of those still remain unnoticed in the deleted articles tables. I wonder how many deleted articles we actually have?! --kingboyk 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If we make deleted articles generally visible unless specifically set otherwise, we're going to have to use that setting a lot. Huge chunks of our material is deleted because it's a copyright violation, and allowing that to be publicly visible defeats the entire point of deleting it, which is no longer to publish the material... Shimgray | talk | 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There wouldn't be a default in either direction. There would be two possible actions, both equally easy to do: 1) hide from non-administrators and 2) editorial removal without hiding, similar to blanking a page, but makes it a redlink and otherwise appear as a non-article. There's no problem if either one of these two ends up being used more than the other. Quarl (talk) 2006-09-05 14:57Z

I believe it is fine for admins to give out a deleted article if it's been AFD'd as non-notable. Right? Even though in the instance where SlimVirgin deleted specific revisions those should have been kept secret. Right? Anomo 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it was clear that Slim Virgin had her reasons for deleting a quite specific revision. It was also clear that digging around to try to discover the content of that revision for the purpose of making it available to a banned user with an evident grudge against Wikipedia was something that a good colleague on the admin team would never even have thought of doing. When Everyking says he never actually did it, that's a relief. But he's still questioning (as of yesterday) whether there would have been anything wrong with it if he'd gone ahead. I can't trust him with the admin tools in those circumstances, no matter how good an editor he is otherwise. This is definitely not like userfying an article that was deleted because it was on a non-notable topic or userfying a userbox that did not belong in template space but had no particular tendency to disrupt the project or bring it into disrepute. We are expected to have good enough judgment to make such distinctions. Metamagician3000 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Specific reason? The only thing I could find was stuff about a case settled out of court.Geni 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Asking an admin for the contents of an article that was AFD'd as non-notable to put it on another website and the admin giving it is still acceptable, right? Anomo 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I may not be an admin, but it seems that we all experience lapses in judgement from time to time. Everyking made an intemperate post -- it's all too easy to post first and think later when it comes to message boards. Lapses happen. A single, and in this case, harmless, lapse is not sufficient cause for a permanent desysopping, else we'd likely have no admins at all. I anticipate, at least, that an arbitration will be forthcoming to decide whether the desysopping is permanent? Powers T 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. I believe they intended it to be permanent right from the beginning. Everyking 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I personally am concerned, you have eroded all the trust placed in you by the community and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. There's no prohibition on you standing for RfA and I doubt the Committee would overrule community consensus were you to succeed, but I know I'd oppose. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the tiny part of the community that is me still trusts you, James. You were always responsible and did a large amount of valuable work as an admin. I'll gladly renominate you for adminship any time you want. Haukur 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The emergency desysopping was understandable, but is no longer necessary. I may disagree with some of his actions, but in this case, the thread doesn't show a deliberate attempt to abuse the sysop tools. He looked at the deleted revisions and commented on them. He did offer to post it, 'tis true, but if he had known it contained personal information, he wouldn't have done it. While the emergency desysopping might have been warranted because of the potential for dissemination of personal information, I'm sure this will serve as a lesson to be more careful when dealing with banned users, and as such, the emergency desysopping is no longer necessary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Deathphoenix here. But unless I've missed something, nobody was suggesting that this emergency desysopping was in fact temporary. Friday (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that nobody suggest that this is a temporary desysopping, but I'm suggesting that it should be. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be, but the way people get adminned or de-adminned seems to be changing quite rapidly in recent days. I think we at least deserve to know who's on the special list of people that get to make such decisions. Friday (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom and Jimbo. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Everyking is an excellent vandal fighter. I'd support a speedy restoration of his admin priviledges. --Ixfd64 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's more to this issue than this one incident, I would agree. And if there is more to this issue than this one incident, then an ArbCom case needs to be opened if this "emergency" measure is to be permanent. Powers T 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Deathphoenix, and LtPowers. Any emergency desysopping should either be followed by resysopping after a suitable explanation (which is the case here in my opinion), or an ArbCom case to determine the appropriate long-term action. If the current situation continues, then Everyking has been punished without a trial. I realise that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there does need to be some process here.-gadfium 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is exceptionally stupid. Say I pick up someone's valid credit card and someone else asks me to give it to them. I tell that person "I'll think about it". Then I throw the credit card into a fire and nothing else comes of it. Do I get arrested for identity theft? ugen64 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No, but if you were a police officer who offered to pass the credit card to a conman, you'd lose your job if caught, whether you actually went ahead and did it or not. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
In this case the offer isn't cause for dismissal. Everyking has stated that he didn't know there were personal details in the material. It's not like knowingly offering to hand over a credit card to somebody inappropriate - more like picking up an advertising flyer and offering it to an interested person. After all, most deleted articles are of that ilk and there is nothing controversial about their content. And as we find out from another comment, there may not actually be any personal information at all. I'm not an administrator, but I'm beginning to have grave doubts about the professional attitude on display here. Surely we should investigate the facts before acting? If there is a proven case, then apply an appropriate penalty. If there's nothing to it, then clear the suspect. --Jumbo 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy is wrong. He knew an admin had deleted a small number of edits, which strongly indicates it's personal information or defamation, as those are the most common reason for that kind of delete. But he offered to show the information to a bunch of trolls on an attack site anyway, some of whom have stalked people on-wiki and in real life. Whether he went ahead with it is irrelevant. He considered it, so he shouldn't be an admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Implications redux[edit]

This WP:COPY may be interesting reading. IANAL but I am not reading an obligation for us to make material (licensed by others under GFDL as all text content is here) available forever. GFDL infers redistribution rights (or imposes making material available for redistribution, subject only to reasonable charges for media and costs) but only if we ourselves are using it. If we're not using it (that is, if it's deleted) we don't HAVE to make it available to anyone, the seeker should go to the source. Availability is then up to the original author to determine. If that author chooses to make themselves anonymous or is a troll, and thus we are not quite sure who that is, it's sort of not our problem to help the seeker determine who it was. Therefore to the points said above, I'm not seeing a need to make deleted content available on request, in general, despite it being GFDL licensed. We're not. after all, still using it. We can do so if we choose to but we don't have to. Again IANAL and I may be all wet but I found that implication interesting. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no obligation to make available any GFDL content at all or for any length of time; only, if made available it must be able to be read or copied. —Centrxtalk • 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal information?[edit]

After looking at the deleted version (NO, I am not going to reveal its content), I actually question whether there is any personal information revealed in the post. I personally would have reverted the post as vandalism but not have deleted the revision. If this post is an example of revealing personal information, a hell of a lot of revisions should be deleted from various other articles as well. So, could some admins shime in on this? without revealing anything of the content. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to know what the information was. It's good enough for me that Slim Virgin, a colleague in good standing, thought it necessary to delete certain quite specific revisions of the article. I then see a banned user who has an obvious grudge against Wikipedia trying to get hold of it in a way that shows he is hoping to use the information for some purpose such as undermining Wikipedia or Slim Virgin, or both. I then see an admin hanging around on an anti-Wikipedia attack site openly talking to the banned user about using his admin powers to dig out the information for the banned user's benefit, and evidently seeing nothing wrong with this.
Folks, this is far worse than a bit of wheel warring (for example). I don't care that Everyking did not actually go through with it - the way he openly discussed doing so, refrained only because he was afraid Slim Virgin would be "pissed off", rather than because it would be undermining collegiality, and was still suggesting after being desysopped that there was nothing wrong with what he was offering to do all add up to this: Everyking is not someone I trust with admin powers. Given his judgments in this instance, I don't know what he would do next to undermine people whom he is supposed to be supporting. We can't afford to leave admin powers in the hands of people who have lost our trust. End of story. Metamagician3000 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, the information has been deleted entirely so that it's not visible to admins, so I don't know what it is KimvdLinde thinks she's reading. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I saved a copy of the revision to my harddisk before it was oversighted. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
First, can I ask why you did that? And secondly, if you did, why can't you see why it was removed? It was personal information (alleged, but not known, to be correct). SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want a detailed discussion here about the content, that is fine with me, but I think that would exactly opposite of what you tried to achieve in the first place. I dispute your assessment of the post and that if you want an answer, I would have to make statements that I rather do not see here, knowing the apparent sensitivity of the deleted revision. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My take[edit]

Everyking said he was going to repost deleted content, a common occurrence. He didn't repost deleted content. Said deleted content included personal information. Everyking didn't know this (unless he's lying about that). Everyking didn't actually do much of anything, and yet was punished as if he was a convicted felon. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Validating Wikipedia Review[edit]

Reading through this thread, I am somewhat shocked a sysop is being punished for association with a forum that WP is highly critical of, claiming the forum is not a place for constructive criticism, but a place for trolls, which is a way of dismissing the forum as a whole. However, demanding no admin be part of the forum is to give the forum de-facto validation, saying they indeed got something right, when WP should instead say WPR is of no concenquence. Also, I am surprised over the protectionism over deleted information. It is as if Wikipedia suddenly laid claim to the information that was offered by the admin, reasoning the posting of the information is a betrayal of another admin. However, this fundamentally contradicts the copyright-less nature of Wikipedia. The texts, even when deleted is not owned by either Wikipedia or the Admin who deleted the information.

This desysop is not based on factual concerns, but it is a witch hunt, which Everyking has been unfortunately targeted.--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

These are very sensible points. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No they aren't. The above ignores the nature of the information in question and the nature of the person who was asking for it. The notion that it is somehow a bad thing to not release personal info to banned users is simply absurd. To claim that this has something to do with the nature of the copyright on the information shows such a basic misunderstanding of the GFDL that I don't evene know where to begin. While it is true that admins have a right to edit on Wikipedia Review it is accurate that it is by and large full of unproductive trolls and banned editors and that such editing will be rarely productive. JoshuaZ 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you please expand on your claims? Such as how I have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia? What personal information? How personal was that information? --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the edit in question, but how personal isn't relevant. That it was personal and that the ArbCom thought it was personal is what matters. The fundamental misunderstanding concerns the assertion that Wikipedia is "copyright-less" This is both wrong and irrelevant. It is wrong because there is a GFDL and it is irrelevant because the issue here had nothing to do with whether or not the info was copyrighted the problem was the idea of retrieval of deleted personal content and giving that deleted personal info to a banned user. JoshuaZ 04:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
To answer briefly the last three: Who knows, since it wasn't what was actually claimed ("GFDL" =/= "Wikipedia"); the probable personal informaton in the deleted revision; and completely irrelevent. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the GFDL thing: GFDL requirements only come into play when something is being redistributed. If we've deleted something from Wikipedia we have no obligation to release that material to anyone. Now, if some current version of an article is based on a previous version that has been deleted then that is a problem, because attribution information has been removed. However, what we are talking about here is some random personal information that was deleted, so any GFDL concerns are irrelevant. There's this misconception out there that the GFDL requires that every single edit to Wikipedia be available when this is simply not the case; only the edits on pages that are published must be available. --Cyde Weys 05:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, once the information is on an article, it is legally published, and once someone distributes it, that version is no longer in your hands, and once it is deleted from wikipedia, the versions in the wild do not get deleted either. And GFDL is a copyleft, not a copyright.(added later) Still though, no one has cared to address how Wikipedia owns the information that was deleted or how the GFDL gives any rights to Wikipedia to decide who can or cannot publish previously deleted content. Still though, no one has addressed why no admin may be part of this forum without being attacked by peers when the forum in question is disputed in validity, which is the same as to question if anything the forum says should be taken seriously, which is the same as saying what ever happens on that forum does not matter, which means Wikipedia should concern itself with only the information it currently is displaying and not with the information others are displaying. I also question the validity of the argument that the users who recieved this information were banned and therefor were ineligable for possession of any wiki information, or atleast ineligable of possession of information from a sysops or should be barred from association with sysops. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 08:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, under the GFDL he may. That's beside the point. The point is that he may not use his Wikipedia administrator privileges to do so. Everyking could not have acted in contravention of the GFDL (presuming he credited the authors), but he would have abused his administrative privileges. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
But then we return to the freedom of association and validating WPR issues. Also, I never have seen clear rules as to what one may or may not do in this regard, so unless there are rules that predate Everykings actions, he has not abused his powers, but brought up a new issue that should be addressed. So far though, addressing the issue has been limited to making an example of Everyking. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 10:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There are no clear rules because we have made no clear rules. We have made no clear rules because doing so would make it easy to circumvent them. The rules are to apply common sense and discretion. Yes, that's vague. But if someone can't manage to follow them, that person should not be a Wikipedia sysop. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Part of being an Admin is using one's own judgement. Now for me, going onto a wikipedia attack forum, and offering to give deleted content, which contained personal information, to a banned user without even contacting the deleting admin, and then, to top it all off, state that the reason he didn't post the content was because he might piss off SlimVirgin, is a gross lack of judgement. I've seen a lot of words like witch hunt, and making an example of Everyking, but the truth is that he has lost the trust of the community. Simple as that. As far as validating WPR, well, I disagree with you on that point. Again, what's important here is judgement. Going onto WPR, and mixing with banned users, wiki-haters, and a general bunch of trolls is likely to have some of the community, some of them being constantly attacked by WPR, wonder why Everyking would want to be there in the first place. However, I think that Everyking's de-sysoping comes down to this: It is debatable if he abused his powers, but he has abused the trust of the community with his actions. Thε Halo Θ 10:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But again, there is an allussion of ownership to the text. As for mingling with banned users, why do you feel you have the right to control who your peers can mingle with? As for the trust of the community, I cannot care less about what Everyking does on WPR, as long as his actions on Wikipedia are fair and reasonable to other users of Wikipedia and helps improve Wikipedia. Everyking has done nothing to destroy my trust of him and my trust for him is just as important as your trust for him.

Also, I question the wisdom of 'super users', users who are a little more than all other editors, making the foggy rules of trust. The everyday editors of Wikipedia need to trust you, the sysops, more than you need to trust each other and without our input, editors can feel invalidated personally at times and come to feel distrust. A picture as an example would be an overlord commanding the underlings. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...a very interesting reply to say the least. I wasn't aware that I ever said that your trust for Everyking was less important than mine. As you can see from my edit summery, this is just my humble opinion of the situation. I'm sorry if you feel it is something more. As far as "...why do you feel you have the right to control who your peers can mingle with?" is concerned, again, I never wrote that Everyking's movements or who he talks to on the internet should be restricted. He makes a choice of who he talks to. However, that choice has a consequence. I believe that one of the Admin's duties are as to act as ambassadors of Wikipedia, and, as such, I hold them in higher reard when interacting with Wikipedians, and talking about Wikipedia elsewhere. As for "Super user", well, I don't think that they do make foggy rules of trust. Everyone's idea of trust is different, yours from mine, mine from Tony Sidaway's, Tony's from Everyking's etc. However, it is my firm opinion that Everyking, with his actions, has lost the trust of at least part of the community. Thε Halo Θ 13:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should make clear who I am addressing. I am addressing multiple users, all of whom support the removal of Everyking as a sysop, and at the same time, no users. As such, I will address arguments individually as if they created and argued for themselves instead of addressing users. I, in this method, avoid offending people without intention. The exception is when I ask people to expand on their own arguments.
Our differing ideas of trust is exactly why mods, admins, sysops, crats and so on, should not define what trust is. However, at the very top of this thread, it was declared by a single entity that Wikipedia has lost trust for this user. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 13:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

user:BhaiSaab on article Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World[edit]

This editor keeps obstgruction the development of this article. His latest attempt is to claim that google scholar cannot be used as a reference , thus he is is blanking out this paragraph from the impact section :

Hagarims is widely cited by many contemporary historiographers and historians of early Islam, such as: Bernard Lewis, Robert G. Hoyland, Reza Aslan, G. R. Hawting, Herbert Berg, Francis Edwards Peters, S. N. Eisenstadt, Ziauddin Sardar, Malise Ruthven,Richard Landes, Ibn Warraq and John Wansbrough.[2].

--CltFn 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A search link is not an appropriate reference. I think if you look at the history of the article you'll find that CltFn continues to remove as many cited criticisms as possible, and insert his original research (sometimes trying to weaken the criticisms) often with quite misleading edit summaries used for reverts. BhaiSaab talk 02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are some diffs supporting my claim: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30].
Read the talk page (and its archive) for background. BhaiSaab talk 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been established that CltFn has used sockpuppets to influence the development of this article. BhaiSaab talk 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-working site as reliable source?[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mughalstan, if a site is the only primary source for an information, and the site is no longer active, does Google's cache count as an acceptable reference? Note that the article in question doesn't have any other primary sources (only some web based forums/blogs, which in turn refers to the no-longer-existing site as their source), and the site that is supposedly the all-encompassing source is no longer active. So, in absence of any other primary sources of information, does google's cache count as proof of verifiability of the information presented? --Ragib 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I was able to use the WayBack machine for some articles, then a Google Cache should be good too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Google cache expires rather quickly. Wayback is commonly used and safer in this regard. Pavel Vozenilek 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pavel, but I could see it being moderately useful as an interim source if it's already available, while a search of WayBack happens. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames[edit]

This page was deleted without discussion, so I nominated its deletion for review. The result was that the speedy deletion was overturned (see here, but the page has not yet been restored. Could an admin please do so?--Lorrainier 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I redeleted it. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think ANOTHER speedy is going to help anything. When something was just undeleted by the DRV to be run through an XfD, re-speedying it is a violation of consensus that it go through full process. Please undelete, and reopen the discussion for the sake of process. --tjstrf 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I quickened it up as there was an overwhelming consensus to delete. It wasn't a full-speedy, it was a part-speedy as the conclusion is foregone conclusion to expedite WP:DENY ASAP. If you disagree, please come to my talk page.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Remember, my offer to have the page userfied in my userspace is still open, so the ball is in yall's court to see if this is a good idea or not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That MfD had a thumping consensus for delete and has been closed twice per the Snowball clause and Deny recognition. Please let's just allow it to die. No amount of wikilaawyering and handwringing will do anything to bring it back. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly (or not, depending on your perspective), neither of thsoe are actionable as actual, legitimate reasons to do anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact of their being cited continuously to justify actions such as Tony's (and some actions with which you might even agree, such as closing failing RFAs to prevent unnecessary ill will) seems to contradict this assertion. — Dan | talk 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I've yet to hear anyone who has supported this page's deletion explain how it glorifies vandalism any more than the rest of BJAODN, and, therefore, why it was singled out.--Lorrainier 02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply Neither have I, and if a certain out-of-process admin would bother to stop enforcing proposed policies as CSD's, maybe we could actually discuss it. However, the fact remains that the page sucks, and bizzare is an absurdly POV judgment for categorization in the first place. --tjstrf 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - You thinking the page sucks is not reason for deletion.--Lorrainier 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he used the wrong wording, but the fact remains that the page was a breeding ground for vandalism and "bizarre" username creations to get it placed on the page. No reason to restore this page. — The Future 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
All of BJAODN can be seen as a breeding ground for vandalism and the creation of "bad jokes" and "other deleted nonsense" to get placed in it. If you find that to be a problem, then consider discussing the possibility of having the entire BJAODN deleted, but still no legitimate reason has been given for singling this page out.--Lorrainier 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally I do believe BJAODN does need to be deleted per the reason this page was deleted. This page was more than likely singled out because it wasn't on BJAODN. And it doesn't need to be, nor do we need vandalism sub-pages. WP:SAND works just as well. We shouldn't be encouraging stupidity. Were here to create a encyclopedia, not give vandalism and literally bad jokes and other deleted nonsense a place for viewieng. If it's deleted nonsense, it needs to stay that way. — The Future 23:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I give up; I won't have it moved to my userpage. I am no way emotionally attached to that page at all, was trying to see if that was a happy medium people might like. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If no one objects, I wouldn't mind it in my user space if that is an acceptable compromise. I do however think that speedy deletion of this page was unwise and it isn't even clear to me if it even falls undery DENY anyways. I would however like it if users would stop focusing on the details of possibly questionable speedies and just get back to the article space(and this applies to those who feel a need to speedy so much as well). JoshuaZ 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, while I'm commenting: Speedy out of process deletions make sense when a page is producing divisions and distractions from editing the encyclopedia. If a discussion is otherwise more or less civil and is not actively disrupting the wiki such deletions are not helpful and will often harm more than help. That said, users who focus on out of process procedures, especially to defend non-encyclopedic material are being just as disruptive and unproductive as the admins who go out of their way to delete such material in out of process fashions. We should not forget that we are trying to write an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Joshua: You are the wind beneath my wings. Nandesuka 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point: as far as I can tell, this does not glorify vandalism any more than the rest of BJAODN, which should be deleted for the same reasons as this page has been. — Dan | talk 04:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames was simply a list of usernames, very few of which were creative or funny (even knock-knock jokes take up more space than one of the bizarre userames). BJAODN, on the other hand, actually require some amount of creativity sometimes, they're not necessarily just your garden-variety User:Fatmanpoop or User:1800-kiss-my-ass. --Interiot 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
But you're forgetting about "IwanttobeapagemovevandalwhenIgrowup...on wheels!", "In Soviet Russia, me block you!", and "I'm begging you to unblock me! How can I face my family!".--Lorrainier 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


I've blocked this chap because he seems to have taken a bee in his bonnet about drini (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to the point of campaigning for the removal of his sysop bit. talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is calling for the de-sysopping of an admin now a blockable offense? I don't think so. --Nscheffey 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
There are disruptive ways of doing it. Kelly Martin has informed me that she has discovered that the troll in question was an abusive sock master, and I understand that other administrators have blocked the socks she detected. See the notices on ShortJason's user page for more information. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Try reading this before jerking the ol' knee. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I read that, and have seen those diffs before. Apart from this whole Checkuser deal, nothing ShortJason said merited a block. Describing an admin's actions as "wholly inappropriate" and calling for his removal should never result in a block, and it is a frightening precedent to set. --Nscheffey 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
We have a Civility policy. Not having sysop access, and not having read up on this fellow's history, places you at a disadvantage. You cannot see all of the actions that editor took during his mercifully brief and unlamented campaign against Drini. --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well can you at least tell me what he did, or is that a sysop-secret? --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I read that, and have seen those diffs before. So your rhetorical question ("Is calling for the de-sysopping of an admin now a blockable offense?") was knowingly false, then? --Calton | Talk 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Knowingly true. The diffs show ShortJason calling for the de-sysopping of Drini. The worst he says is that Drini is a "bad admin". I do not consider this a blockable offense. --Nscheffey(T/C) 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It is most likey the method that the user used was the reason why he was blocked by Tony. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually just the demeanor and circumstances. Something about it wasn't right. I blocked and brought it here for review. Immediately afterwards someone investigated and discovered a whole slew of socks. I guess this was what is sometimes known as "copper's nose". I regret that I clean forgot to read him his miranda rights. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You really think of yourself as a "cop", huh? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This line of discussion is unlikely to lead to any useful result. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was just struck by the oddness of it. For what it's worth, I support the block. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A very appropriate block. Nscheffey, this was the same user that made an attack userbox against Drini, that has since been deleted. Agree that his behaviour is akin to trolling, and I'm not surprised by the discovery of the socks -- Samir 05:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that making a Userbox advocating recall of an admin is enough of a personal attack to merit an indefinite block. I think it is a dumb idea that won't advance one's goals, and I agree that such a Userbox should be deleted, but I don't see anything in WP:BLOCK that implies it should result in an indefinite block. I also don't think it is befitting of an admin to inform an editor, with many constructive edits to the encyclopedia, that they are blocked indefinitely in this manner. As to the allegations of sockpuppetry, of which I have seen no evidence, "block first, find reasons later" is not an acceptable policy, nor do I think editors should be blocked for setting off someone's spidey-senses. --Nscheffey 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I do agree with Nscheffey that the attack probably didn't merit an indefinite block. That's why I brought it here saying: "Please review and fix block, block duration, etc, appropriately." I felt that he was certainly up to no good but wasn't sure how grave a matter it was. Events developed from there. Judgement of whether someone is simply expressing concern or is actively seeking to disrupt Wikipedia is typically something an administrator does, although of course we make a point of reviewing one another's actions. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, he wasn't campaigning for my sysop removal, but for my removal (from wikipedia), as he never qualified his statement in a precise way. Still, he's the same user as Orange Rocks and TJWhite, both usernames being abusive sockpuppets (among many) and therefore he has been indefblocked, using a newaccount to circunvent blocking is a no-no. -- Drini 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this event or product. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


This page has been clearly vandalised with an inappropriate graphic.

It's gone now. I looked, saw it, checked the page history, couldn't find the addition... went back to the page and it was gone. Peculiar. --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
An IP from the University of Maryland vandalized Template:Japanese Imperial Family. I would dearly like for someone to have a chat with their ITS department. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? This is convenient. I happen to go to the University of Maryland. Deliver me a list of vandalizing edits from UMD IPs on my talk page and I will forward them to a guy I know in OIT. --Cyde Weys 18:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So I contacted OIT and it turns out that the vandalism came from publicly accessible terminals that do not require logins. The kind of vandalism from these IPs (insertion of penises into high-visibility templates) is indicative of an experienced, vicious vandal. I'm just kind of surprised that someone went to all of the trouble to logon from three different terminals in the library at my university just to vandalize. --Cyde Weys 05:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:The Wiki Fan[edit]

I'm curious what others make of this new user, particulary his user page and his first article. Am I being paranoid or is it a little off? Canderson7 (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's patently a troll. Indef blocked and deleted. Goodnight. --Doc 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't sure why it looked trollish until I saw the user page history. Is it just me, or are editors with "wiki" in their usernames disproportionately problematic? Friday (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
hello, I am The Wiki Fan. First of all I am a girl not a boy, and secondly why am I banned? Thirdly, what is with the weird message I got about right guard? 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (The Wiki Fan)
Aye right, and you just happened to find this page - troll begone! (blocked) --Doc 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked at your contributions - if this page is a secret sorry but it's not very secret LOL 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (The Wiki Fan)
Aye right! A newbie who knows to lookup contributions! -- Drini 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've already done an English (and maths!) GCSE (I know you don't have them in Scotland, but I think they're the same here), and I'm sorry for having the brains to work stuff out, and anyway I've been lurking here for a while. But if you don't believe me, fine, screw you guys, I've tried talking nicely and I guess I'll have to tell my friends and teachers not to bother with wikipedia in the future. If you won't let me edit for stupid reaosns then it's more your loss than mine, I already know the facts I can add to articles, wikipedia doesn't. 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this story as it was posted on another website. It said to see the edit summary so I looked over many contributions. I can't see any contributions other than making the right guard deorderant add so I don't know what they did in the deleted pages. However, Canderson7 handled the unblock horribly. He is supposed to make it unblock reviewed and give a reason. Instead he gave no reason and blanked the notice, only even saying denied in the edit summary. [31] Then The Wiki Fan not knowing Canderson was an admin and not say a vandal (the handling did look like it wasn't an admin to me), put it back [32], Canderson blanked it again and actually bothered to say in the talk it was denied while committing the horrid crime of protecting the talk page without good reason. [33]. Anomo 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this? Be nice to trolls week? Give me a break. --Doc 10:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Anomo, I'm always open to criticism of my actions, but I believe my handling of the unblock template was fully justified. There's no reason to tolerate a troll after they've been blocked, and The Wiki Fan was clearly trolling. However, there's no way to really understand that without looking at Wiki Fan's deleted contributions. I'm curious what site you read the story on. Canderson7 (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The site I found it on is not a liked site and I don't want to associate myself with it by naming it. But I'm objecting to the use of the unblock template. It looks like its first edit or two was to make on article on the real name of Linuxbeak, so it should have {{unblockreviewed| as something like "single purpose account, account exists for harassment/trolling, see deleted edits" and not just the notice blanked. It just looked like unfamiliarity with the unblock template. It is evolving all the time. Recently, I saw it has "NO REASON GIVEN." I didn't realize that could be done with wiki code and the whole thing of {{{1}}} being blank doing that is just lovely skilled code! So I'm just saying I think some text should have been written on the talk page as documentation, that's all. Anomo 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
My goal at the time was to feed the trolls as little as possible. As for that site, I encourage you not to take anything you read on it at face value. I always welcome feedback; I'll keep your opinion in mind. Canderson7 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Automating identification of 3RR violations?[edit]

This may be a bit of a long shot but I thought I'd ask... I need to go through the edit history of a page to identify 3RR violations for an arbitration case. Unfortunately it's an extensive and complex edit history involving multiple editors. Is there any way of automating things so that I can automatically identify instances where an editor has reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours? Is there perhaps some sort of script that would do the job? Any advice or pointers would be much appreciated. -- ChrisO 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that have horrible risks of accidently blocking people for 3RR who were reverting vandals? --tjstrf 23:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No, since it would merely identify who had done 3> reverts. No blocking is involved - all I'm after is data for an arbitration case. I'm only interested in edits performed by those involved in the case. -- ChrisO 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Just set the history to grab a large page size worth of edits and process them with a suitable perlscript. Shouldn't take much more than half an hour to write. --Tony Sidaway 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth the hassle; just say that they were edit-warring. If they were obviously edit-warring, you don't need to just look through their contributions for the arbitrary 4 reverts in 24 hours violations. The ArbCom understands this. --Cyde Weys 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ars Technica / User:Tatsuma[edit]

I'm not really sure what to do about this, but we have a user (with what appears to be a number of sockpuppets that have followed an almost identical editing pattern) whose sole purpose has been to revert the Ars Technica article every few days (or sometimes multiple to their preferred version. Mediation was called in, but Tatsuma has refused to participate, and as a result, nothing came of that. An RfC was filed [34] but nothing came of that either. There was a Mediation Cabal case filed back in July, too, .[35] I don't know if a block is called for in this case, but it's really getting tiresome. What can be done? Thanks. -/- Warren 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this guy from Fark (though I haven't had a lot of discussions with him). He's usually an exceptionally reasonable guy; I really don't think this is anything malicious at all. I have his email address and am sending him an email, asking him what's going on and explaining the consternation his edits are causing. Tatsuma could be a really helpful and knowledgeable editor (particularly on articles related to Israel); I think he just doesn't know about the talk page. If he has to be blocked he has to be blocked, of course, but I really think this is a matter of ignorance about Wikipedia policies more than anything. Captainktainer * Talk 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
As I posted in the RfC, this account's sole purpose is to 1) tendentiously edit Ars Technica and 2) impersonate a member of another community. Recommend a block (ideally in a way that frees up the username so a responsible person can take the name). Captainktainer * Talk 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violations by Devios is against wikipedia's rules.[edit]

Copyright Violations by "Devios" is against the pillar of Wikipedia's Rules!

Compare the info which Judith Sims wrote and the illegal info Devios is putting and reverting to copyright info on wikipedia's website is considered VANDALISM!!! Read carefully. You will find copyrighted info on wikipedia's website. This is against the law. < Judith Sims

Thanks in advance for conducting an investigation into this violation. The current version of the grapefruit seed extract article still has some illegal copyrighted information left in it. The second part of my complaint is the user Drini who has wrongfully protected this article. This user Drini has protected information in the article that is copyright violated information. Again, Drini has protected this article which has illegal information in it. Drini has reverted to illegal copyrighted information and protected this illegal copyrighted information which is against wikipedia's rules which can be proven by looking at the history section of the grapefruit seed extract article. Here is a link to prove Drini is protecting illegal copyrighted info written by Judith Sims: Wikipedia does NOT have written permission from the copyright holder to use this information. Again, the current version still has some illegal copyright violations remaining in it.

You mean this section that was removed? Syrthiss 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this section was removed but there is still some more illegal info that needs to be removed. I want to REVERT back to before August 25 to fix the copyright violations but Drini has blocked me from fixing the article. Drini has protected this info (intentional vandalism) that is illegal to have in this article. Why? This is obvious copyright violations!

Do note that the anon above has made 17 edits to the article at this point today, after Drini unprotected. [36] Seems to be working along fine. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Only after much hassle and making an official complaint about DRINI did I get help. Also, this is not over by a long shot. The user Devios put copyrighted info on the GSE website and Drini is the one who protected this illegal info about the Grapefruit Seed Extract article. DO NOT PUSH THIS INCIDENT UNDER THE RUG. I WILL RAISE MY VOICE EVEN LOUDER NOW. I declare here set forth that I am making an official complainst against the user Devios for copyright violations put in the grapefruit seed extract article. I demand and investigation into the user Devios!

Y'all might want to lighten up. The page is unprotected, you're editing away merrily, looks like you've reverted extensively to remove the copyvio, and suggesting edit wars as you did on my talk page [37] is probably not a good idea. WP:CHILL might apply here. (Boy, a guy offers a bit of followup info, and he falls right into the middle of things...) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I am interested in AVOIDING edit wars. Please STOP the user Devios from puting illegal copyrighted info on the GSE article again. I would expect an investigation into the copyright infringement. I think it is appropiate to STOP the user from violated the law again and again and again. Remember, I want to stop the edit wars once and for all by the user Devios.

uh.. scary.. an official complaint about me ... -- Drini 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

IF YOU AIN'T GOT MOJO NIXON THEN YOUR STORE COULD USE SOME FIXIN'! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Again, Devios illegally put copyrighted materials on the grapefruit seed extract article. Where is my JUSTICE. Where is the investigation. Please tell Devios to STOP illegally putting copyrighted materials on the GSE article over and over again. Also, DRINI told me she unprotected the article but if you look at the time she claimed she did this the article was still blocked at that time. When DRINI claimed the GSE article was unprotected is was still protected. The KEY is the time. Check the user talk of DRINI that proves this BOYOND any shadow of any dissenters. I can prove it DRINI lied to ME at that time. Just check the times!!!!!!!!!! JUST SHALL PREVAIL.

Good god, you're right. Your yelling has worked. Just for you, I'm going to block both of them indefinitely, protect the article to your preferred version, and get a steward to speedy-sysop you right away. Good work, man! No, you have inspired me... I mean GOOD WORK MAN!!!!! JUST HAS PREVAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, ranting on WP:AN (or WP:ANI, for that matter) is likely to get you ignored. Or, apparently, made fun of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Rebels must rise." Notice how so-called wikipedians FAIL to deflect attention away from the issues at hand. WHERE IS YOUR HEART?

Remember How The Grinch Stole Christmas? How tiny his heart was at the beginning? That's kinda like what I've got, but colder. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please check the history of DRINI: Drini has ERASED info from her/his discussion page but I have the link that proves DRINI was dishonest with me. I am tracking this users activity on GSE. Drini seems to be playing around with the article recently. This is beyond odd.

User: and User: blocked due to trolling and wikistalking for a day -- Drini 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WHERE IS YOUR HEART??? (ahem) Tony Fox (arf!) 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we please get some "official" word on all of this? Or a range block? This is getting irritating. [38] Tony Fox (arf!) 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
While some of the information is similar, the comparisons that I did does not really constitute a blatant copyright infringement. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I notice at the History section, a lot of the text was copied and reworded, same with the paragraph on General use. My apologies to all. However, I am not sure if the text can be removed from it;s history. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Potential confusion between user names[edit]

We have both User:Future and User:The Future. Given the potential for confusion, I'm inclined to think that we should require one of them to change their username. Since User:The Future is new, we might ask him/her to choose a different name. It doesn't appear that the "new" account is in any way an attempt to impersonate User:Future, so I'm not sure of policy in this case. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have User:FireFox and User:Firefox, User:Halo and User:The Halo (to my knowledge). Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the addition of "The" makes the usernames sufficiently different. I suggest to do precisely nothing until actual there is actual evidence of confusion. Kusma (討論) 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Err.. sorry if I caused any confusion. I didn't realize there were any other usernames in relation to mine until a few days ago :\ The greatest argument I could present is that we haven't blocked User:Firefox or ask him/her to change thier name despite it being very similar to admin User:FireFox. I do think the "The" part of my name is enough of a distinction between User:Future. Also take into consideration that the editor has only 4 contributions and has been inactive since May. I don't think anyone should have to change thier username, as the other is relatively inactive, or not active enough to cause confusion. But thats my $0.02.. — The Future 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the very few contributions by the 'older' user, I tend to agree with Kusma. However, confusion has occurred [39] so I am not entirely sure. Future has signed up to sk, but I don't think has contributed much there.--Golden Wattle talk 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it has occured, which I recognized, hence my edit above about realizing this a few days ago. But this editor who got us confused was also legit trolling around Wikipedia blaming actions over on a talk page about masturbation. I think the inactivity of User:Future is enough to not get us confused. — The Future 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There is also User:Solipsist and User:Solipsist3 (who has made some troll edits) which confused me at first. I suggest we leave the existing names, but implement a policy from now on that names should not have a close similarity to an existing name. Tyrenius 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, we already have that policy. However, similar names get through. If they are good faith editors and confusing isn't happening on a daily basis, just leave them be. pschemp | talk 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with pschemp, many are blocked at creation but those blocking tend not to know every username on wikipedia and certainly not the less active ones. If everything is going ok and no general confusion then there seems little reason to do anything. If it bothers you, you can ask one or other to consider changing name voluntarily and if that doesn't sort it out there is WP:RFC/NAME to deal with such issues. --pgk 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest creating a page User:Future (disambiguation)? -- Eugène van der Pijll 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing from a proxy[edit]

This is the IP of the Swedish darknet provider "Relakks", it's currently not banned from editing. Make it so :) 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A proxy is fine (well, fine enough for now, anyway). It's the open proxies that we're not too keen on. So, which is it? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a private, encrypted proxy that requires a monthly subscription to access. I guess it's up to your definition of what an "open" proxy is, but I think it qualifies, even if it isn't monetarily free. Plus it's still a violation of WP:NOP, since it is anonymous. - Debuskjt 00:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an open proxy IMO. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this needs blocking. I doubt any vandals are willing to pay money to engage in vandalism. It's the free proxies, which anyone can access, which are problematic. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Proxies such as this are ok because you have to pay. The problem ones are free proxies, i.e. anyone can access it. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
There are (as I understand it) two other problems with open proxies. One GFDL which requires some form of attribution. I think this proxy server lacks that problem. Second if users are making sockpuppets or placing defamatory or libelous material (or related problems) we need checkuser data. Therefore a non-free open proxy is still highly problematic. This is a serious policy issue that needs to be addressed. JoshuaZ 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking on meta:Right to vanish[edit]

Hi everyone. I'd just like to have the following clarified. I've heard it discussed before on IRC, but I haven't actually found any policy that implicitly allows or encourages it:

If a user has requested to exercise their meta:Right to vanish and have their talk pages deleted/protected, is it a good practice to indefinitely block their accounts to:

  1. Protect against account hijacking or prevent further misuse
  2. Force them to request an unblock thus giving an administrator the opportunity to restore their talk page history.
  3. Provide a record that such user claimed to have left the project on a specified date
  4. Discourage theatrics because "quiting" would be taken much more seriously.

If the above procedure is indeed commonly accepted, could we please have it codified somewhere? Thanks,  Netsnipe  ►  04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. I have seen at least three problematic users vanish and then decide to return leaving the previous material deleted. The correct place to put this is on the village pump policy page I imagine (and since right to vanish is cross-projects this may need to be brought up on meta for among other things making sure that individual projects can have different versions of how the right is implemented. ) JoshuaZ 05:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of discussion around meta:Right to vanish -- see this discussion on VP (policy) for example that included Jimbo Wales. --Ben Houston 06:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the VP link. I've cross-posted my proposal there. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure it does much really. For (1) if it get hijacked they can do (2) so the hijack is just a little more drawn out. For (2) general opinion seems to have been not to delete talk pages but just blank them. For (3) not sure why we need such a record. --pgk 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Three makes sense so if a user repeatedl claims they are vanishing and then shows up again we can take their vanishing less seriously. JoshuaZ 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess I don't take people vanishing that seriously anyway, people have all sorts of reasons for wanting to leave and later return. --pgk 17:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Ericsaindon2[edit]

I was going through what links here on my talk page, and there appears to be a problem with what one person claimed about me. User:XClyn is an imposter of me. I despise that someone would make those harsh statements, and use my name as a scapegoat in order to benefit their views, at my expense. But know, that this person was not me, and is not affiliated with me in any way shape or form. I would appreciate it if you would block the user indefinately for something else, but not as my imposter, because it makes me look bad for something I would have never done. You know my nature by now, and know how I operate, and it is clear that this is not me at all. I dont use vulgar language, and I find it pathetic that someone would become an imposter of me just to make me look bad. So, please at least know that this was not me, and I have no clue who it was that made these statements to Will Beback, and then reverted them (while using my name as the signature). But, I just do not want to be affiliated with a baffoon like this user in any way. Sincerely, User:Ericsaindon2

Please stop're just resetting the ban. Now it's four days longer than it was before. Hbdragon88 07:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 did have a point though, XClyn did indeed place {{sockpuppetproven|Ericsaindon2}} on his own userpage.[40] I've removed it now. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He coudl have just emailed an admin about it though. Now the ban is five days longer than it would ahve been. Hbdragon88 04:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Execution by single firearm, possible 3rr, pos edit war[edit]

I happened upon Execution by single firearm tonight, and the history of the page looks suspect to me. I was unsure if this was a 3rr vio, or even a possible edit war between users MarkV, AbuAmir, and a few anonymous ip addresses, but figured an admin should probably take a closer look at it. Autopilots 08:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations have their own subpage. WP:AN/3RR --tjstrf 09:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A simple solution presents itself, given that this term scores precisely four Google hits, all four on Wikipedia. Guy 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll speedy the talk page too since it is now orphaned. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow! O.K., that was an unexpected response. Though I think I understand your reasons for deleting that article, I can't say that I wholly agree with them. I felt that it was a noteworthy article, but felt that the circumstances of the editing were suspect, prompting me to post my concerns here. Therefore, I humbly request an undeletion (Execution by firing squad is an example of why to keep the article) and put a request cleanup tag on it. Autopilots 07:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

We're all publishers[edit]

We try to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add. [41] Uh, no we don't? I've been here for three years and I'm hearing today that I'm considered a "publisher" with all the legal responsibility that entails. This would never have occurred to me. Should we add something somewhere prominent in MediaWiki space? Does someone have a mandate from the Board to publicize this more widely? Haukur 13:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fully endorse Haukur, that's a very good point. First I've heard of it, too. Brad, you have prominently displayed where on every edit page that individuals are responsible for their own contributions? I'm serious, please go look. Or are you just now about to prominently display, etc...? That would be akin to shouting "You get back in here! I'm shutting the door right now!" after the horse that trotted out of the stable some years ago. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC).
Brad's the Foundation attorney. While his statement may be influenced by his relationship with the Foundation, it rings true to me. Even if the Foundation were to be held to be a content provider (which Brad apparently thinks isn't the case), the editors of Wikipedia would be held responsible in law for their own contributions. If you put something libellous on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically absolve you of responsibility for what you've done. It doesn't make any difference what the Foundation says, this is the law. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well... "You agree to license your contributions " always meant to me that they're my contributions, and I've only granted (GFDL) license to republish or redistribute content. however it may not be obvious to everyone not already a lawyer or familiar with copyright and publishing. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, IANAL, but as you say that says I merely license my contributions. Presumably, the Foundation takes that license and....does somethingthatisnotpublishingbutlooksquitealotlikeit with it. Surely, even in lawyerdom, licensing is not the same as publishing. -Splash - tk 14:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's quite correct as far as it goes but the issue here isn't a question of copyright. I've always thought that I contribute content which is then published by the Wikimedia Foundation - just like I contribute articles to magazines and they are then published by someone else. Until I stumbled upon the above quote today no-one has told me different. Haukur 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The distinction arrises because the Foundation and its agents (through OFFICE) exercises almost no control over what appears on the site. In particular what you post on this site will appear without anyone having approved it, and hence you are solely responsible for that content. Others might come along later and remove what you posted, but that is not the same as the agents of a magazine deciding whether or not something should be printed in the first place. Dragons flight 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, okay - who's an agent of the Foundation? (I assume this has some particular legal meaning.) Are you sure that sysops don't qualify as such agents? If I unprotect George W. Bush and it gets vandalized with libel (a real enough example) then I can't be held responsible for the libel as an 'agent'? Haukur 14:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Sysops, as a class, are not agents of the Foundation; they are (usually) appointed by the community. In rough terms, agents of the Foundation are those individuals employed or appointed by the Foundation and who are exercising special authority derived from that employment or appointment. This would include Jimbo, Danny, the Board, Brion, the election officials. It may include ArbCom, OTRS, and the Devs. It is unlikely to include sysops, burueacrats, etc. As a sysop you are personally responsible for your actions (so you could be liable if you chose to restore or protect libelous content), but you are not (usually) responsible for the actions of others. Dragons flight 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I always assumed this was the case (after reading some discussions about s.230). It is much better that individual contributors are responsible in law for their edits than that the Foundation assumes responsibility when it has no way of preventing defamatory articles. However I've never heard anyone emphasise this point to anybody. The Land 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have long assumed this was the case as well, and have said so on a number of occasions. I'm also pretty sure I've seen similar quotes from the foundation in the distant past, though I wouldn't know where just now. (Haukur, where does this particular one come from?) However, I would agree with the above comments that this is not necessarily clear to the average user. Dragons flight 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Link's up there but here it is again: [42]