Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive161

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

Noticeboard archives


BKLisenbee and Opiumjones 23 topic ban, redux[edit]

On July 25, User:FayssalF proposed a topic ban for BKLisenbee (talk · contribs) and Opiumjones 23 (talk · contribs). There were no objections before the text was archived, so I am working under the assumption that the topic ban is effective as of the time FayssalF posted it. The edit warring in question has continued, with edits directly from the BKLisenbee account (link, link, link etc.), along with anonymous edits that I suspect were made by, or on behalf of, Opiumjones 23 e.g. reminding BKLisenbee about the topic ban (link, link) along with abusive edit summaries (link). FayssalF has described a troubling conflict of interest on the part of both users. Furthermore, both appear to be single purpose accounts (i.e. centered around a group of articles having to do with Beat Generation and related figures in Morocco). I've seen this go on for a couple years, and FayssalF, who has tried to mediate this all along, must have infinite patience or some unspecified reason for not simply blocking these two accounts and being done with it. I'm blocking both users indefinitely: given the continual COI, SPA, and edit warring, I don't see what else these editors are contributing to the encyclopedia other than their quarreling over a certain set of articles. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones 23's block has been lifted, as checkuser evidence points to BKLisenbee as the culprit, evidently an attempt at a frame-up ([1], [2]). Previously, BKLisenbee had insisted that as long as he is to be blocked, then both PiCo (talk · contribs) and Opiumjones 23 should be as well. PiCo, for what it's worth, has made Wikipedia edits across a range of topics outside those included in this ban. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been one main reason why I never blocked both accounts indefinitely...
  • They are the only accounts with major edits (90%?) at all the concerned articles. We have had some similar situations. If you block the only existing editors of a disputed article then you'd risk ending up with a biased, an advert article or some BLP violations. The articles may need a review from third parties but without the help of these accounts nothing can be reached. They are the main people who know all details about the topics in question. The problem is that nobody cares much about the topics they edit. I have asked for help many times using multiple noticeboards but there has been little interest.
My topic ban was meant to encourage discussions at talk pages. They had already agreed to all the requirements and conditions I proposed a few months ago. I assume part of the responsability in this mess. I have been quite busy, for a few months -- both on and off-wiki, and that probably caused the failure of the plan agreed by all parties. I am less busy nowadays and I suggest a conditional unblock:
  • Participation will be limited to bringing reliable sources for questionable and disputed edits to talk pages for a review. I'll post a notice at the WikiProject Music talk page and noticeboard and hope some people would be interested in reviewing the articles. In case there would be no people interested then I can do that myself as they had already agreed to it. You can help, Gyrofrog. And of course, no personal attacks (inappropriate conduct and name calling) otherwise we'll be obliged to block the offender and communications would become limited to e-mail. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Fayssal, I don't see how you are responsible for any of this mess. I understand your point about why you would allow their continued participation, at the same time there is an obvious COI on the part of both editors, and as each seems to have such a big personal stake in the outcome I don't see how this could possibly lead to less-biased articles. This is further complicated by the checkuser results that Hersfold has reported, I can't think of any good reason to unblock BKLisinbee, nor can I see any good faith behind such actions. In any case, I don't think it's right that, thus far, you've shouldered the responsibility for mediating this all along. It was obvious that the two had exhausted your patience if not the community's. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Since my name has been mentioned I'd like to add a comment - though I'm not sure I'm really allowed to, as a non-admin. Anyway, for what it's worth: yes, I've been editing the Paul Bowles article lately, and it's turned into an edit war with BKLisinbee. This is because any attempt to edit that page in a way BKLisinbee doesn't like results in a reversion - he believes he owns the page. What I've been doing is trying to protect an edit or group of edits reached in a rare period when a whole group of editors were present, and none of them were BKLisinbee. Those editors were the gay mafia - yes, they do exist - and they were trying to insert justification for including Bowles in their favourite category, gay and lesbian writers. To help them out, I added a section on Bowles' achievement, which was previously lacking. Personally, I think a writer's sexuality should only be mentioned should only be mentioned if and as it's relevant to his achievement. Bowles' sexuality was pretty marginal to his career as writer and musician - only one short story deals with gay sex, out of a pretty big oeuvre. But it's also a fact that that story is frequently anthologised in gay collections, and that's notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, IMO. BKLisinbee, however, is on a mission to whitewash Bowles' reputation - he won't have anything that paints the Master as anything other than a red-blooded heterosexual. The facts don't seem to bear him out - Bowles' obituary in the BBC website, for example, explicitly mentions his homosexuality. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't mention this in passing, although I don't want to allow it to dominate the article. PiCo (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While any edit warring is discouraged, the dispute you have with BKLisinbee appears to be separate from the one between him and Opiumjones 23, and my impression is that you are not affected by the topic ban (in which Fayssal did not mention your name, anyway). You don't seem to have the same personal stake in these articles that the others do, your contributions are across a range of subjects (and that was the point of my mentioning you, sorry this wasn't clear). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
PiCo, your involvement is minimal and as Gyroforg explais, you don't have the same personal stake in these articles that the others do.
P.S. I have no particular interest in the sexual orientations of Paul Bowles but "he was a lover of men and boys" is a tabloid lingo; something far away from our practices and MoS guidelines. Another note, isn't a primary source in this case? The best scenario would be using a third party reliable source. It seems like a synthesis indeed especially that PB doesn't explicitely and literally say he "loved boys and men." -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Re paul Bowles in fact the Bowles page is central to the other issues as it was Bowles and Hamris 50 year long enmity, despite social meetings, that created the Jououka/Jajouka mess with Bowles stirring the pot. The book to read that clarifies matters is "Without Bowles: The Genius of Mohamed M'Rabet" by Andrew Clandermond and Terence McCarthy, (Tangier 2006) The authors assert that Bowles deliberately mislead publishers on facts regarding M'Rabet (Page 95) discusses his homosexuality and lover Yacoubi (PP 100-1). Many mis-truths constructed by Bowles are being continued after his death by people working for his estate and official website through this site.
As to the topic ban. I think that the User:Emerman (Did you never did check user him Fayssal?) sock of BKLisenbee drove all reasonable editors away. My own attempts to get a sourced rational and accurate version on various pages may benefit those editors. I am happy to leave notes on talk pages re errors and sources. keep up the good work PicoOpiumjones 23 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Opiumjones 23, I cannot respond to your question regarding the CheckUser explicitely but I can assure you, as in the cases of Tuathal (talk · contribs) and Abelelkrim (talk · contribs), that they would have been already blocked for sockpuppetry if they were the same user. I have some few notes:
  • I have just received an e-mail from user:BKLisenbee telling me that he is not the one who edited with IPs lately. I then asked him for more clarifications. I am still waiting for that.
  • You had already agreed not to use people's real names. Is there any reason why aren't you stopping?
  • It looks that you are involving user:PiCo more than enough. Please read and understand my response to user:PiCo above. Him editing Paul Bowles is one thing while you editing that article is another thing. You have been using it to pursue a blatant clear agenda. What is important to you is the relative relationship between Paul Bowles and your real-life activities. You explain it better than no one else when you say above that "the Bowles page is central to the other issues as it was Bowles and Hamris 50 year long enmity". Isn't that because Hamri is also central to your real-life activities?
  • I haven't followed the full violations of the terms agreed upon (see [FayssalF/JK]). Just a random check leads me to one of the central disputed articles which is Jajouka or Joujouka (you know what name to choose). The article has an external link (we have plenty of times discussed the nature of external links in this dispute) but it seems that you are still using your interview as a unique external link. This violates clearly our agreement. I am not sure if you are still using the website as a source.
  • I suggest you recuse yourself here as you are officially topic banned. It is also unfair to listen to you here while dismissing the other party's points and claims. You have both done wrong. You both deserve being topic banned but getting one party blocked indef while keeping the other one half-free is nonsense. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Where did I use real names? User:BKLIsenbee is the same as BKLisenbee, therefore i did not use the User's real name. Yacoubi is dead and his name is in the book mentioned and others.
The book reffed is an important source.
  • I did not block User:BKLisenbee and I have not been involved with multiple wars with editors over POV as he has. I did not try to frame users and I did not blank pages from Calgary IPs, or act in concert with other editors as recent edits on the various pages by User Jajoukatruth and BKL show they have been.
  • I have tried over and over again to comply and consult with you over a wide range of sources and issues at the Fayssal/JK page but was the only voice there !!!!
You did not respond to my emails regards many questions. You seem to be overly concerned about USer BKL's pleadings.
  • I am happy to be topic banned if the other party and his socks are also.
  • You state above that this ban is from editing and that you would be happy to receive info on talk pages.However you generally ignore such info in my experiences.
  • I can't be made responsible for User:BKLisenbee's indef block. I think that many users and editors will welcome that block and pages will improve greatly.part from the Paul Bowles page you should look at the Choukri and M'Rabet pages that are full of his POV edits. Chourki was explicit in his condemnation of Bowles in Morocxcan newspaper articles before his untimely death.
  • The new sources that I used on recent edits are 100% bone fide and independent of me.
  • I have researched and published work on Brion Gysin and William Burroughs before Wikipedia or indeed the internet as we know it was conceived. Therefore I am an expert on those area, regarding both primary and secondary sources. Note that musch of the background info on the cvarious Joujouka/Jajouka pages was added by me and has not been attacked by BKL or his socks.
  • paul is as reliable as the Jewish Internet Defence web site Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I emailed you a recent article from the Guardian and one from the Irish Times. Both papers are papers of record. Factual errors are/can be addressed through the letters pages or through other actions. No one has questioned a single fact in either articleOpiumjones 23 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You used a real name above. No idea?
You are an expert on the area. You are deeply involved. You know most of the details -as does the other side. You are a music expert having financial interests in telling the world that Jajouka should be spelled Joujouka, that Master Musicians of Joujouka are the real ones and Master musicians of Jajouka are impostors, Bowles was a "lover of boys and men" (why not just say gay or pedophile if you got independent reliable sources?). Using Wikipedia to advertise your own festival is inappropriate. You are sourcing it using your own site indeed! And I know very well that your festival (especially the unauthorized filming of the tomb). If you were here for neutrality you'd have reported that as well. But, no. Instead you are using your own non-notable website (same for the other party's website) to tell us about a failed festival. No, that is totally inappropriate here. You had done the same to promote your music album and you were warned. On the other hand, you are posting and following each other on the internet. Your comments are found everwhere the other band announces something about their activities. This is true for the other side as well but it seems clear to me that you are managing a real internet campaign. I wouldn't care about all this bruhaha but you are using Wikipedia as a battleground and being topic banned is the least that can be done. You both have been topic banned but appearing now to tell us here that you are so correct respecting policy/guidelines/agreemnts is nonsense.
Yes Frank. You have e-mailed me The Guardian and The Irish Times articles. I also receive similar consultations from the other side in similar fashion from time to time. My e-mail is open to both of you since the first day. But you rebember that I told you I was very busy lately. I wished I assisted to the festival as well but failed for the same reasons. I listened to both of you for almost three years and you know that you both deserve a topic ban. You both are here for a reason other than writing an encyclopedia. You are both here to represent your interests (music producing, festivals, copyright, legal issues, etc...) Your lawyer edited for a long time before being detected. Wikipedia should be filled with reliable independent references and sources. It is great to hear that you have started to use them. I told you both that and are prohibited here (all agreed, right?). So why are you still using it to advertise your festival? But, it is great again to see parties using reliable sources though I'd not dismiss your relationship with the Irish media. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Pico and I have been in touch before and need no intercessions. He/She is a fine editorOpiumjones 23 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, S/He is a fine editor. No doubt about that. I have nothing against PiCo's general edits. S/He's been around for a long time and I respect their dedication and all their contributions to the encyclopedia. As Gyrofrog states above, PiCo is not a single-purpose account at all and I personally believe they got no interest in all this. But if you have been in touch before and need no intercessions with PiCo then my opinion on PiCo involvment in this has to be reviewed. I'll assume good faith as usual but if PiCo jumps to the rest of the articles then I'd understand that as a kind of meatpuppetry. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Re Blatent clear agenda You are correct re Paul Bowles but that agenda was to return the page to factual accuracy and remove inaccurate and blatantly incorrect info of the User you are dealing with by email. We both knew Bowles, BKL also knew, and has been involved in the personal and professional life of several other article subjects. You know this already. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it is one of your friends (a journalist) who met Bowles for an interview. You have a clear and official interest in having "Bowles loved boys and men" inside the article. By saying and insisting on the specific wording (you could bring an independent reliable secondary source or use a specific citation) you make it clear that you are here for a specific reason. So that is blatant, Frank. This has been going for more than 3 years. You have been both officially topic banned before being blocked. You are both guilty of using Wikipedia to protect or/and promote your real-life interests... So whatever argument you'd use here is useless. Neither you nor BKLisenbee would bring us something new. Don't forget that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I will be having a general review for all these articles and invite all editors and admins to assist me. Both your points will be taken into consideration and sorted out one by one. That has been the reason behind the topic ban. Nothing changed. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Really you are getting very one sided info. 1/ Festival a clear sucess with full co operation of village council, co-operative, Caid and government of Larache.

How can you claim filming in Sidi Ahmed Schiech was unauthorised other than quoting User BKL who was not there. Fully authorised by Moroccan government permits and the village council and Caid at Tatoft!!!! Sorry to disappoint you all crosses crossed and i's dotted there. How can you make such a statement here and claim a semblance of neutrality? The festival was attended by a host of independent media their reports will follow soon. I will address you by email re this. But I think you have been feeding from a fountain of angry lies. Re: Bowles the above book says enough and is a good source, really I could care less except for post mortem hypocrisy of his friends which only barely surpasses Paul's own. The facts are all there in the secondary printed sources that keep getting pulled from the page as User Pico states.

What about other peoples interset in US media Plus I have NO financial interest in Joujouka/Jajouka they are people who need charity/as they are poor and mistreated people. Dont further that mis treatment by siding with cranks and oppressors Seek the truth it is there in the secondary sources Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2008

¨Plus saints preserve us just as User:BKLisenbee gets blocked User:Emerman makes his first edits in a year. You will recall he /she stopped editing when you treatened check user . And speaking of names see [3] I think that you better check use and also block before that user gets off the groundOpiumjones 23 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones 23, this is Wikipedia. A neutral encyclopedia. We are not supposed to use the arguments such as "charity" and "poor". I don't care about your real-life activities (both of you). I wish there has been no dispute. But I care about what happens here. And you have been told many times that user:Emerman is not user:BKLisenbee. You whether stop that or go for a RfCU otherwise you'd be blocked for harassment. user:PiCo talks about one (1) article and as it known we are dealing for 3 whole years with a dozen of ones. So please leave PiCo out of your dispute. You have never questioned my neutrality in all and we had reached agreements which you disrespected (your interview link for the jajouka/joujouka article?) What I am saying here is that you are both blatantly guilty and you are both topic banned. BKLisenbee is blocked indef for using IPs and his account to edit during the ban. You are not blocked indef because you didn't violate your topic ban. You remain topic banned and I don't see why your points should be listened to here and not his ones. End of story. -- -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wakah I remain silent Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now, please send me by e-mail all your concerns (like main points of disputes). I won't listen/accept your real-life disputes (following each other on internet and other mutual claims and accusations). Only concerns related to Wikipedia editing. I'll post both your concerns at FayssalF/JK (to organize myself better and have a central place for other wikipedians to join) and start working from there. All articles are in a messy state (violations of many policies and including BLPs) and need a firm attention. Any other editor or admin is welcome except you (topic banned), BKLisenbee (blocked indef). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JPG-GR removed rebuttal comments in WP:RM page[edit]

User talk:JPG-GR removed rebuttal comments in Wikipedia:Requested moves at [4] stating that the rm discussion was on the talk page. It is NOT in the WP:RM talk page. He also restored the proposal by User talk:Croctotheface to rename the ABN AMRO article to "ABN Amro" in the August 10 section of the WP:RM page. So I restored the rebuttals to make it very, very clear that the ABN AMRO renaming proposal is contested. It was JPG-GR who first moved the ABN AMRO article to "ABN Amro", causing the renaming war in that article, so his edits should be investigated. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM is not the place to discuss the moves, it is there to record the fact that a discussion is taking place on the articles talk page. The comment would be removed from WP:RM as they should appear on the talk page of the article in question. Keith D (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Then can the ABN AMRO to ABN Amro be moved to the contested section? It is clearly being contested. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The contested section is only for those articles originally raised as uncontroversial and that are contested by another editor before the move takes place. The dated sections are for all potentially controversial moves to be recorded. After the 5-days are up then one of the people processing moves will review the details on the articles talk page and act appropriately. Keith D (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I'm just now finding this section, thank you, Keith, for explaining what I just finished attempting to describe here. JPG-GR (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this need admin attention. All parties should discuss the name of the article on the talk page, as Keith D (who is an experienced user in this area) says. how do you turn this on 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeffpw has passed on - no drama just a note[edit]

As many editors are now aware User:Jeffpw has died. Checkuser information and general human interaction appears to have confirmed this. I have fully protected his user talk page and created a sub-page for memorial comments from our fine community. This is at the request of a new account, which I have no reason to distrust in their honesty and accuracy of the situation regarding their relationship IRL to Jeff. This is just a note regarding my admin actions. No talk is really needed unless others find them in error. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of respect for the decedent, should his account not be indefinite blocked to prevent possible abuse? (Unless we're waiting for more official confirmation) –xeno (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Why? It's not +sysop or +crat or anything that can cause harm to WP. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose to prevent the password from being cracked and someone using it for mischief or to toy with people's emotions. I agree it's probably a non-issue, I just thought it was something that was standard and done out of respect. –xeno (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe part of me hopes that Jeff will come back Monday morning and edit, proving this to all be wrong. Sentimental? Yes. Wrong? No. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Policies/guidelines aside, blocking a well-respected editor after his death seems wrong to me. I can't really explain it; it's just my personal view. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I should think that anyone abusing the account of a deceased editor is going to catch so much hell that - to be honest - it should be left open to snare such an individual. Other than that, I feel that it should be left to the wishes of those who knew him best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, let those who knew him best decide what he would have wanted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, I just thought it was standard procedure. No disrespect was intended, of course. –xeno (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It is. See WP:BP#Securing_accounts_of_deceased_editors. That said, I've never seen the need for it. There are plenty of people who die, or just leave and forget about their accounts/passwords. The 'threat of being hacked' applies just as much to those... but isn't really a significant problem. Ergo, the ones we know about aren't really a significant problem either. Could just as well leave the accounts unblocked in case a family member wanted to leave a last message or some such. In a hundred and forty years or so we will no doubt have a bot go through to clear out people who couldn't possibly still be alive... so it'll all get taken care of eventually. :] --CBD 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I know this is one hell of a can of worms, but... why are we keeping a WP:MEMORIAL page in his user space? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What's there doesn't hurt anything, in my view. The whole "not a memorial" thing is mainly so people know not to make mainspace pages that are memorials. Friday (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)It says in the text that this relates to articles, and I think there is a lot more latitude given to userspace. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Because that's not an article and that only applies to articles. — Coren (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There's precedent, and no harm. It would be tactless and unnecessary to close those pages down. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is also ample precedent at pages like Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. By the way, there is a request on the talk page over there for someone to write up something about Jeffpw for that page. Possibly there is enough to write something there now, but it feels too soon to me - I'd wait until something appears elsewhere online or in a newspaper, or until someone hears back from the family or friends who were in touch with him (everyone on that list is listed by real name - did anyone know Jeff's name?). Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we please nip this in the bud right now? As far as I can tell, that page only includes Wikipedians who had divulged their full name, and for whom sources are cited wrt their deaths. I don't know who else knows Jeff's full name, but I'm certainly not divulging it to anyone and I will encourage his family not to do so, and if anyone convinces any member of his family to post it to Wiki, I hope it will be quickly oversighted while others have a chance to discuss the reprecussions with them. I hope that page will be left for cited, sourced deaths including full names, and please let Jeffpw rest in peace. And I should add how disappointed I am to see others revealing Jeff's profession on external sites; I hope info that he hadn't publicly divulged is not divulged now that he's gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, if that page is intended to handle using only an editor name and only sources to his own page, then there's no problem with divulging new information. I just hope that people are sensitive to not revealing personal information now that he may not have revealed before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly the scope of that 'Deceased Wikipedians' page is, but I did notice that everyone there was listed under their real name, which is why I asked above about Jeffpw's name. If that is a problem here, then as Sandy says, the idea should be nipped in the bud. But anyway, it is far, far too soon to be talking about all this (a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians in a few weeks time would be a better way forward). For now, the (very moving) tribute page should be more than enough. Could someone close this subthread in a tactful way please? Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Vandal IP user[edit]

Resolved: Reverted, blocked, and ignored, move along... Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, user: continues to disrupt categories. He/she has been asked for an explanation and provides none. And he/she has insluted other users before when they warned him. He did receive a "last warning" 2 months ago, not is at it again. He/she has several warnings on his page. Please have him/her blocked out. He is VERY persistent in removing categories. Other users seem fed up with him/her too. It seems that Wikipolicies for dealing with this type of determined user are not working. What can you admins do about this person? It does not seem appropriate to just sit back and let him waste everyone's time. Please block him. Thanks History2007 (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I have blocked this IP for 72 hours for continually removing valid categories from articles despite warnings [5] [6] [7]. On retrospect, that block length may have been a tad long - I can reduce it if it's desired here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the various comments, please see: User talk:Hersfold. In the end, I took the time to type it all up. It is all clear from the talk page of the article in question, but in the end that user managed to take up a lot of time from everyone involved and laugh at them: his initial intent, obviously. I really think Wikipedia policies need review, as explained there. So many good people have to spend so much time to deal with a few guys who can sit at a Starbucks and laugh at everyone by just hitting undo. Please consider a review of Wikipedia policies on IP vandals in general. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Either way, Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore is worth thinking about here. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that page. But it is an essay based on a psychological theory. There has been no clinical validation of that theory with respect to Wikipedia, as far as I can see on that page. A more suitable item would be a simple Intrusion detection system or Intrusion detection approach, adapted to multiple reverts, category restructuring etc. By the way, both of those intrusion pages need serious clean up, and the time I have spent dealing with this fellow, could have been used for that.... sigh... History2007 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't honestly expect us to get a clinical study of vandalism on Wikipedia. Be practical. Instead of complaining about how much time you've "wasted" through your complaining about our policies, go improve the articles you say need cleanup. We can't just wave a magic wand and have things suddenly work our to your exacting specifications, so don't expect us to. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I am going to do is design a better system. Frankly, I see you admins as working far too hard. As you may have noticed, user Face figured out the identity of that vandal by doing some clever analysis. I think you guys are in real need of better tools and better methodologies. One day, you should be able to click a couple of buttons and figure out what Face discivered after an hour or two of work, within 90 seconds. Do you have a database of known puppets and their behavior patterns that can be easily queired? I guess not. Puppet knowledge is folklore now. It must be centralized. You are doing visual inspection of files. In this day and age of database technology, someone needs to say: "STOP & BUILD a DATABASE". Think of the effort that will save all of you. The technology is there, Wikipedia just needs to wake up and start using it. I will start designing that database soon, and post the design somewhere and try to see what happens. I really feel you guys are working way too hard just because you have antique tools. That should change, and will in the long term improve the content of Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Blood Libel at Deir Yassin[edit]

Please help!!!!!!!!!!!

--Shevashalosh (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If Hythiam was Reichstag climbing, this is, well, metaphors fail me. The article was created by Shevashalosh on Aug 3 and had serious NPOV issues from the start, leading to massive edit war over the following days. Looie496 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Several editors have tried to turn your advertisement/WP:POV fork/WP:Coatrack into an encyclopedia article, but you act as though you WP:OWN it. You have already violated WP:3RR today. Please stop reverting before I report you. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the article, because of the edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
<whine>But you protected the wrong version.</whine> :-) Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems I am not worth being answered while Sheveshalosh is. Good. I only wrote 5 FA for wikipedia.
He wrote here "Ceedjee is a clown" : [8] after complaining and attacking me at different places.
All I asked was a somebody (a sysop...) "warned" him so that he should keep cool and don't have the feeling his attitude was a good way of solving problem and he doens't feel in a "strength" position.
Thank you, guys.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've placed a warning for the clown comment. I can't speak for the rest, as I'm not familiar with the subject matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.
That cooled down the matter. Ceedjee (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

Hi, I think that fellow who was just blocked just reincarnated as User talk: and went after both me and Hugo again, vandalizing and insulting. He is doing EXACTLY the same reverts as the blocked user. Could you block him again, and permanently so? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but IP addresses cannot be permanently blocked. Policy forbids it, as most are dynamic...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend nothing more than 72 hours, although 84 seems reasonable...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation: Policy allows a user at a Starbucks to cause havoc and laugh at everyone, and Wikipedia admins are unable to protect the content. Hence the policy needs to change. It is a hopeless policy, obviously. It needs to change so ONLY registered users with a given number of valid edits can change said pages for say 3 months. History2007 (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken identity? This IP, User talk:, has about twenty normal-looking contributions since June 1, mostly on religious topics. On 23 April 2008 someone using this IP vandalized the user page of Hugo.arg. That was four months ago. Most likely a different person using the same IP address. I see no cause for blocking this IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Again: policy failed. period. Said IP left me an insulting message and did the same reverts as the blocked ones. And you seenothing. Great. just great. What can I say....? History2007 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So, you want us to prevent people from ever using Wikipedia at that Starbucks location? Really, if you have a problem with policy, try to change the policy (Wikipedia talk:BLOCK). But you can't say "policy failed," when the entire point is that we don't punish everyone who uses a public IP for the problems of one person. As for "only logged in editors should be able to edit," see WP:PEREN. It won't happen. That aside, if you're getting harassing messages from an IP, your best solution is to request your Talk page be semi-protected for a time. It won't be permanant, but short protections are good for bursts of trolling. For most trolls, though, your best policy is Revert-Block-Ignore. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with HandThatFeeds. Revert and ignore them. The more attention you give them, the more they celebrate. I've ignored the particularly nasty vandalism on my user page and nobody's bothered me since then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have investigated the edits of, who was reported earlier by History2007. I have discovered that this person is very likely User:Pionier. Please see my comment here and the following AN and ANI discussions I found:

Pionier is a sockpuppeteer who has been active on this wiki and the Lithuanian Wikipedia for more than a year. He or she is a Christianity and Judaism POV pusher, with an interest in categorization. He/she is also against gays and against Lithuanians, and has made personal attacks against users who are. In my opinion, this goes beyond simple revert-block-ignore vandalism. This is not some dumb teenager looking for attention. I think further action should be taken. May I suggest a central abuse report to keep track of all the IPs used? Cheers, Face 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is what User:Face found out (copied from here):

User: / User:Pionier[edit]

I see that was blocked while I was away. I have investigated his/her edits, and found the following:

  • He/she has altered the categorisations and nationality of Lithuanian Jewish chess players in an attempt to emphasize that they are Jewish, and to de-emphasize that they are Lithuanian. Those edits do not seem to be very neutral. Here are some examples: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15].
  • He/she has removed Category:Christian denominations‎ from other category pages.[16][17][18][19] You seem to know a thing or two about Christian stuff. Could you check if those edits are ok, and if they're not, revert them?
  • He/she has made personal attacks against Hugo.arg [20][21][22][23], who states on his userpage that he is a native Lithuanian.
  • The remaining edits of this user mostly consists of placing categories in another order, making wikilinks, and adding newlines. This is not disruptive. He/she seems to have made quite some constructive edits.
  • He/she is interested in articles about Christianity, and has added/removed several categories in related articles. Some of these edits seem correct, others seem not.

The most interesting edit I found is this one: [24]. This indicates that the person is very likely User:Pionier, a known sockpuppeteer who has been active on this wiki and the Lithuanian Wikipedia for more than a year. See:

Woohoo, welcome to the noble art of vandal fighting! Perhaps a central abuse report should be created, where we can keep notes about all the IPs s/he has used so-far. I will leave a note about this at WP:AN because I think further action should be taken. Cheers, Face 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet, I am amazed that Face has to spend so much time to do something that better intrusion detection technology could have done. That is what is missing from Wikipedia policies and procedures. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering no security has actually been breached, intrusion detection would be ineffective here. Kudos to Face for sussing this out, though. Still, about the best we can do is a temporary block on the IP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we set up an abuse report? A lot of different IPs seem to be used by this person, as you can see here. As Andrew c also noted there, nearly all of the addresses go back to England and BT Total Broadband, and some of them belong to internet cafes. Cheers, Face 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ on the technology issue. Please see affinity analysis and how it could have reduced Face's workload here by a significant amount if applied to user edits. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand the scope of the problem. Face had to make a logical leap ("this looks similar to edits by X") and then investigate the matter. How do you write machine code to make that first association by intuition? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

IP address of persons who edit.. Is it protected?[edit]

Resolved: I've followed up their original question on User talk:Naavi. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have come across an edit in the article "SENSEX" dated December 4, 2007. The edit has been credited to a person by name Dchoudhary. However there is no display of IP address.

Is this hiding of IP address done on request?

In case we need to contact the person who edited for some information, is there a method?

Naavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naavi (talkcontribs) 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a few things you can do. First, every editor has a talk page; you can easily leave an editor a message. Second, every article itself has a talk page - a general comment or inquiry there will see more eyes. Finally, if there is something wrong with an article, you could always change it yourself. If you're alleging some specific factual problem, the article's talk page would be the way to go. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can e-mail the user, that is, if the user has e-mail enabled in his or her preferences. But that user has been inactive for quite a while, so I have doubts that the user would check his talk page at this time. It would be best emailing the user if they have it enabled in his preferences if you really need to talk to the user. But I don't think it would be necessary and I see no need to, IMO. But like what was said above, you can change it yourself or discuss it on it's talk page. -- RyRy (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Is this hiding of IP address done on request?" - All IP addresses of users who are logged in are hidden. Only a handfull of people have access to that information and they are required to abide by the Privacy Policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm rather ambivilent about Spylocked: what is Wikipedia's policy on individual items of spyware? Further, if it is notable, it is in quite bad state and has been for over a year. Would appreciate others' opinions.--Christopher (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is wholly unreferenced at present, and is lacking in any real assertion of notability. I don't think it quite meets speedy deletion standards, particularly as there are some references out there (see [25]), but the place to go is WP:AFD. Neıl 11:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check please[edit]

I'm a relatively new admin, and up until now, any admin actions I've taken have been a result of seeing reports on places like C:CSD and the like. However, I have carried out my first deletion and spam block just from what I've seen rather than from what has been reported. I saw an advert on User:Adtrends, and deleted it (no links). As the name matched that of a company, I blocked the username too, without giving warning (no other contributions, just that spam advert)

Could someone please check my actions and level of block, and let me know if I was being overly harsh with the type of block I used? Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. bibliomaniac15 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No problems here - Tan ǀ 39 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass blocked for a year[edit]

This will also automatically give him another chance in 12 months, but I'd like input. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to stay at indef myself - his attitude doesn't seem to of changed. My fear is that in a years time he'll just be disruptive again. D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
He may be, yes. Perhaps a community ban would be more fitting? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think any further time spent on our part is a waste. A year is fine, if he comes back and continues, we'll indef then. Tan ǀ 39 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If someone comes back from a year's block and is disruptive, we should trust the people who will be around then to deal with the matter appropriately. The real question is under what circumstances would an unblock request be granted. For a community ban, you'd also have to go through the contributions and gather the evidence into one place. Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, this is why I blocked for a year, nothing else will need to be done for 12 months. A ban would be more open to unblock requests. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP seemingly used as a social network[edit]

There are a few kids using their Talk pages as MySpace or something similar. They published a Friends list and they talk about stuff in their pages. The main users in question are User talk:SLJCOAAATR 1 and User talk:Super Badnik. Another admin Theresa knott had already talked to them. I saw the behavior and gave them a warning. One of them came back with a bellicose attitude here, daring me to block. Otherwise they seem like harmless kids (even though User talk:SLJCOAAATR 1 has two recent short blocks for personal attacks and edit warring and User talk:Super Badnik one recent for 4RR). They seem to be obsessed with everything about Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Their edits seem OK, not vandalism, therefore I don't want to block but their use of WP as a social network is troublesome. Opinions from other Admins? Am I off-base on this one?, as I prefer not to block. -- Alexf42 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that talking to each other on their talk pages is pretty harmless. They are active editors after all so it's not as if they are only using wikipedia to network. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The main reason (nah, the only reason) why I did not block outright and came here for opinions instead. Thanks. -- Alexf42 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is policy, and while I'm not one who desires community interference in the pages of individual users, such a thing sets a bad example, a bad example which is worse if it is ignored. You're here to edit an encyclopedia, or at the very least manage the editing of an encyclopedia, so these users should have no problem complying with policy here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I can remember ever disagreeing with Theresa on something like this. Their encyclopedic contributions are way too thin, clearly tokens thrown to uncaring sysops. Moreover, their responses to these worries are snarky, so MySpacey. Safe for MySpace, I've a couple pages there meself. I've blocked both accounts for social networking. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with me. You must Taste the Korn. Let that be a lesson to you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott if you ever tell Angela I've been one of her biggest fans through thick and thin only cuz the keenest of us know she can do no wrong even when she canny botches it I'll crawl into a corner, curl up, weep my heart out in the chavel of my broken dreams and blame you. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Please remember that this is ant hen-cycle-op-ede-helia, and keep your myTube soshulizing to a minimimiumiumuimum. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think these blocks may have been a little harsh. User:SLJCOAAATR 1 has 730 mainspace edits vs. 646 talk page edits. User:Super Badnik has 212 mainspace to 46 talk page. Hardly "token" editing, and hardly users who are using the site primarily for social networking. Having reviewed a random sampling of mainspace edits from each, there are some contributions that could certainly be categorised as, well, bad, but others that have been perfectly OK. I feel a softer approach may have been warranted on this occasion: a warning, certainly, but also clearer guidance on where they were going wrong and how to contribute more positively. All these blocks will have done is to turn two potential useful contributors away from the project. Is there any chance that the blocking admin could take another look at these blocks? Steve TC 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I was going to block them for the weekend but GG got there first - and indefinite means just that, no determined length of time. Yes, there are valid contributions; but this is a world wide contributor driven encyclopedia and not an excuse to bring a few mates around to buff up the video games articles. The other point is, that one of the participants dared an admin to block them - and again I confess that GG beat me to it! I don't think an attitude of taking it to the edge and seeing who blinks first is an appropriate method of editing WP; if they realise they have gone too far and undertake to edit according to practice and custom then unblocking them is the proper course, but if they don't want to "play" according to the rules then, ultimately, the project is best of without them. Lastly, SLJCOAAATR 1 has been previously blocked - I'm not sure the message is getting through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as User talk:Super Badnik now has managed to break WP:NLT while blocked, after I offered a second chance, I'm not sure they were here to do good to begin with. MBisanz talk 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
They should stay blocked. Its not like the blocking admin ever chats or jokes with other editors, err, uhhh, scratch that, never mind. -- (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all swayed by original research shreds edited into articles on video games they clearly play day in, night out. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; you took the time to reconsider, and took the time to reply. Thank you. To the others who might read this, I will only say that while SLJCOAAATR_1 responded badly, in a manner that warranted action of some kind, I don't think the initial broaching of the subject here was handled in the best manner. An immediately combative tone, coupled with an immediate threat to block, rather than a helpful explanation of where the editor was going wrong. Other, bona fide excellent contributors with thousands of edits to their names, keep lists on their userpages of editors with whom they have worked (note that SLJCOAAATR names the section "Wiki Friends & Allies In Editing"; far from a real world "friends" list). And many of us do use Wikipedia to communicate with other editors with whom we are friendly, on subjects not directly relevant to the improvement of any particular article. Anyway, 'tis done now. I would only urge a calmer approach in future; it might not always work, but it wouldn't harm things to try. All the best, Steve TC 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to understand the justification behind the indef block of Super Badnik, see here, but have heard nothing so far that seems to justify indef blocking a user who has made constructive edits. There seems to be a mix of MYSPACE/OR reasoning, but nothing that really seems to add up to justification (especially not for an indef block). There seems to be a lot of assumptions ("video games they clearly play day in, day out") but little assumption of good faith. Without stronger justification, in my opinion this block is simply bad and goes against common sense. Why are we alienating a user who has done nothing to actually disrupt Wikipedia? Let's not forget that, once the autoblock expires, this user can be back on Wikipedia in 24 hours using a different account, and probably not in the mood to be constructive. I would like to see this user unblocked but, as you can see from my first link, the blocking admin is not happy with this. TigerShark (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just cleared out any items in these user's userspaces (most of which were userboxes only they used or sandboxes that were forks of articles they worked on). And I found these other users who they call "friends":

I'm thinking we should also apply these blocks to the users who I've pointed out the number of edits for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It may also be worth it to examine the other users involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/Sonic and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/Sonic/Characters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've not been thrilled about handling this because I can more or less understand where these editors are coming from and they have neither been vandalizing nor causing lots of disruption. However, their use of talk pages tends to stray far from WP:Talk and taken altogether, the contrib histories are very thin. While there are nods to websites, the article edits are short, shallow and mostly original research from playing the games. The worry here is that if there were thousands of SPA accounts like this on en.Wikipedia, the servers would be handling mostly chat and images and the bedrock of WP:RS would quickly start growing cracks crevices. Accounts like these have been blocked in the past and I see no reason why we shouldn't be very careful about this kind of editing. I have indef blocked all the above editors but for User:Fairfieldfencer, who is more targeted on meaningful edits in the article space. There are maybe two or three more editors in the WikiProject lists (above) who also have shallow contribs in the article space, but they're a bit less active. I see some good faith lurking about among most of these editors. I'm willing to talk with each of them and reconsider each block, depending on how each editor responds and what they plan to do now. Some of this is clearly owed to a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for but I'm afraid these blocks have been the only way to get them to take heed. Lastly, a notion has been put forth that we could make "enemies" of these users, who could be back in a day with new accounts as vandals or trolls. Not only do I think this thinking strays from AGF but the truth is, Wikipedia is rather fit at handling vandalism and either way, mustn't be held at bay by those kinds of fears. Input on all this is welcome, as ever. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go through the user space edits of the accounts that you did block.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Especially the blocking of Person and Talon, not to mention the deletion of a WikiProject. Those two are still learning what to do and will become good editors. And the deletion of WikiProject is a terrible thing to do. Would anyone here like it if I deleted WikiProject:Video games? As for them editing video game articles, would like them to edit articles they know nothing about? If users did that there's be misinformation everywhere. Users should stick to editing what they know about. As for the OR, I myself as a Sonic fan, see that as important information to the characters make-up. We're not treating this like Myspace, we're just being friendly. Or would you prefer it if we were unfriendly?Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between being friendly and misusing Wikipedia. Person and Talon had more edits to their friend's user pages than to articles. Even after my deletions, they still don't have more edits to articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a community second. And if your only contributions to Wikipedia are based on your own experiences with a subject, then you are also violating policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Care to point out how being nice and friendly is misusing Wikipedia? And the reason why those two haven't made edits to articles is because they're afraid that they will make mistakes and get blocked. As they are now.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
They have done nothing but make friends. Wikipedia is not MySpace, Facebook, Craigslist, etc. Accounts are to be used to improve the encyclopedia. Those that don't improve the encyclopedia (through destructive or simply non-constructive means) get blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also note that we do not block users because they make common errors in articles (unless these errors constitute the deliberate insertion of disinformation) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but do they know that? I don't recall anyone telling them that, and I've been wacthing their pages.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why would they assume they would get blocked? --Random832 (contribs) 08:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Because they're inexpierienced.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The only error that seems to have been made is perhaps some original research and it is not clear to me that somebody has spoken to the users about it. I am very concerned about this. This seems to have turned into a witch-hunt against users who do have 200+ contributions simply because some people don't like the idea of some social interaction (I don't see people getting blocked for leaving barnstars or "plates of cookies" etc - which seems to be social interaction here). When I raise the concern that we have probably turned good contributors into vandals, and certainly lost their good contributions, the answer seems to be "that's OK, we can deal with vandals". I can understand a concern if somebody was only using Wikipedia servers to hosts their "MySpace" content, but if they are are making decent contributions (albeit needing some guidance), then it doesn't make sense to me. They do not seem to have been disruptive in any real way. It is simply not true that they have made no contributions (at least the user I mentioned above), if we are not happy with their contributions we can deal with that. As for the justification that they got confrontational, are we surprised? I bet we could make most of our contributors confrontational if we suddenly became authoritarian with what they could and couldn't do, when there is no logical justification. Just go and find somebody leaving plates of cookies, tell them they are social networking and threaten to block them, and see what response you get. This goes for long term contributors with project buy-in, never mind kids who have just joined the project. TigerShark (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That is not the issue. There is no "witch hunt" or prejudice against contribution count. If an editor's only contributions are social interaction, they are misusing Wikipedia and should be putting that energy into another website where social interaction is the main goal. Every so often, we find MySpacey editors, list them here (or ANI), and try to figure out what to do with them. These users don't cause problems, but they don't do anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Super Badnik helped save an article from getting merged. SLJ made a task force to help improve articles. And all the other editors that were blocked were part of that task force. Two of them were still learning. And to learn they need to go to userspace and talk. Or as you call it, "Wrongly using Wikipedia." Apparently it's against policy to teach inexpierienced users.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who is enjoying their time on Wikipedia clearly should be blocked indefinitely, and new users should always be blocked until they have contributed at least 3 featured articles. It is completely unacceptable to start using Wikipedia until one is an experienced contributor who understands how everything here works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talkcontribs)
Excuse me? That makes no sense. How can they make a featured article if they're blocked? And you're saying if someone enjoys Wikipedia they should be blocked? I teach inexpierienced users in my userspace or their userspace. What you're saying makes no sense at all. I've been here for almost a year and haven't made a single article on Wikipedia. But have not been blocked once.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
He was being sarcastic. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Ryulong but you are wrong. Here are the article contributions of Super Badnik [26] (just shy of 200). If he was only using it for hosting his content and chatting, then yes we would have a problem, but not when he has made a decent amount of contributions. Again if there are problems with the contributions, that can be dealt with in other ways. I have not checked the contributions of the other users, who may only be hosting/chatting, but that doesn't mean that we should block Super Badnik. TigerShark (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall anyone saying she has been using Wikipedia only for hosting and chatting. I do know that instead of taking any of five chances to talk about this, she made an explicit legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
After you had blocked. Again, go around blocking other contributors because they have a chat with another use, talk about themselves a bit on their user page, or leave someone a barnstar, and see the response you get. The block just escalated matters. TigerShark (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)A look at those contributions doesn't show 200 quality constructive edits, it shows quite a few tiny edits quickly reverted either by himself or by other editors. It's thanks to editors like this that the article for Sonic The Hedgehog (video game) is longer than the article for the Great Wall of China. Dayewalker (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So if there are issues, we can deal with those, rather than issue an indef block. I don't get your point about the Sonic article being longer than the Great Wall of China article. Remember this is a new user who doesn't understand all of our policies and guidelines. We need to be clear why we are blocking them. Is it because we don't like their contributions? TigerShark (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In this thread (above), I said why they were blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, well none of that gives you justification to block Super Badnik. It is just a jumble of concerns about some social networking and the quality and depth of contributions. Is there any policy basis to this block? If it is IAR, what problem are you solving? TigerShark (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The block notices that GG gave provides not only the reason, but also the basis by which they can be unblocked - and indefinite means just that, there is no minimum period so they can be unblocked just as soon as they undertake to use WP for the editing of articles rather than networking. I would comment that there is little evidence that they don't understand policies and guidelines, as they have got the hang of joining Wiki projects, indenting talkpages, linking, etc., so it appears that they choose not abide by some rules. Lastly, this is Wikipedia; it is well known as being the internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit - thus anyone participating on this site should expect to be involved in doing encyclopedic work. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
None of it is a valid reason to block, and he has made contributions. Just because we might be willing to unblock him later, doesn't mean with have to have a very good justification in the first place. TigerShark (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
SLJ and I taught them how to do those things. I don't know if they've read the policies or not, but I have feeling if they read the policy about using WP as a place to chat, they wouldn't have thought being tought things and being friendly fell under that category.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If I may please ask, what chat policy are you talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(ECx2)Well put. Basically, the users are put on hold until they can show admins they know what's going on and what's expected of wikipedia editors. Once they do, they're reinstated. If they don't want to do that, they're not here to help in the first place. End of crisis. Dayewalker (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Being an admin doesn't give us the authority to "put users on hold" until they can show us that "they know what is going on and what's expected of Wikipedia editors". There are a very well defined set of reasons why we can give preventative blocks, and we are expected to weigh that against the cost of the block. Here we are going well outside of our remit. Even if we IAR, please have a look at the problems that WP:MYSPACE aims to solve and see if we have any of them here. What are we preventing with this block of Super Badnik? TigerShark (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the non-social policy. This is probably assuming bad-faith or something like that, but I think that these blocks are abusively using admin powers. And this should be noted, Badnik said this when she was appealing to be unblocked: " I have already showed i do not use wikipedia as myspace by making alot of contributions and i have started several articles and edit more articles than left messages on talk pages." "Started several articles." Definitely should be noted.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the users to speak up. Badnik's talk page has been protected because of her legal threat and SLJCOAAATR has started on his 2nd chance project. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an abuse of power. SLJCOAAATR doesn't need to prove that they can provide positive contributions because they already have. Super Badnik does need to withdraw his legal threat. We are acting as if we are in a position of authority rather than just having some extra buttons. I would like to unblock SLJCOAAATR and also Supe Badnik (once they have withdrawn their threat), before more damage is done. Objections? If anybody does object I would like them to explain what we are preventing with these blocks. TigerShark (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The unblock requests made by those two editors have already been declined. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the two people that reviewed declined, but I also reviewed and I would have accepted. After all of this further discussion I am requesting again that I be allowed to unblock. I am all for working with these editors to address any issues, but am not comfortable with them being blocked during the process unless we are actually preventing anything significant. They do not seem to have ever been actively disruptive. So, please, let's give the benefit of the doubt. TigerShark (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh for the love of Pete! Leave the kids alone. Forget 'bitey'... this is 'chew em up good and make damned sure they have no reason to like us'. The actions taken also make about as much sense as an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. There is a feeling that they spend too much time chatting on their talk pages and not updating articles... therefor the proper response is to block them from editing articles and make it so that they can ONLY edit their talk pages. BRILLIANT!
Suggestions for how to handle the inevitable re-appearances of this issue in the future: Say 'Hi!'. Be friendly. Give them a 'welcome' template with links on how to edit Wikipedia. Wait a while. Politely point out that they are spending alot more time talking than editing. Wait a while. Suggest that maybe they could have more fun on MySpace and that we really aren't here for all this chatting. Wait a while. Apologize for having to protect their user talk page(s) until they start editing more. Wait a while. Block, politely and with hopes of future reconciliation, only when it is clear that they aren't really going to contribute. Then put a note on their talk page telling them how to request unblock when they're ready. --CBD 11:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Super Badnik has retracted the legal threat in an email to me, so I have unprotected their talk page. TigerShark (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, I would like to unblock Super Badnik and SLJCAOAAATR, and plan to do so if nobody objects. I will leave it an hour to see if there are any objections. Again, if you do object, please describe what a continuation of the blocks would prevent. TigerShark (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection; my decline was based on a number of factors, mainly WP:NLT. I do think these users need to contribute to the encyclopedia in a more constructive way, but regardless of my opinion, if they say they will do so, then give them the benefit of the doubt. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an objection either, just a question. What's going to happen to Unknown, Talon, Person and Sonic&Mario?Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm greatly concerned about the block of Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned? Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that as I was writing this Gwen unblocked Unknown. Issue resolved? Oren0 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Note: I have unblocked Super Badnik and SLJCAOAAATR, restored their user pages, and left them a request to review WP:MYSPACE and WP:NOR and to make sure they stay within those policies. TigerShark (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't have unblocked with such a short duration. One hour? Give me a break. That's not long enough notice given that there was no consensus towards the block or against the block, and the numerous unblock requests were all denied by other administrators. There should have been say... 6 hours notice. I'm not going to wheel war over this, but I am disappointed that you have unblocked without much of any discussion or consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To be fair it has been discussed substantially, and when I asked previously (3 hours before the unblock and last night) all I got back was a response to say that the unblock requests have previously been declined. Nobdoy has been able to provide a justification for what the blocks were preventing. Keeping users blocked when the block can't be justified doesn't seem the right way to go. But I didn't do this quickly, it has been discussed since last night. TigerShark (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is why I will not edit under my old account. I have well over 15,000 constructive edits to this project and really enjoy it but who ever said admins are folks with extra tools and not in positions of authority said it well. Wiki is not Myspace but it is a community. I actually have never even been to myspace and have no interest in it. Again, the blocking admin never chats, jokes or socially interacts with others on this project?? We all do it to a certain degree. There has to be a better way then indefinate block. If persons are being disruptive and have been given chance after chance and still won't abide by policy that is one thing, but this imho is another. Also, there is no place for legal or any other kind of threats. There are plenty of truely disruptive troll like creatures out there, I agree, but have these folks risen to that level? I admit I don't know. Cheers, -- (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! There's a lot to wade through here so I might have missed something.. but someone was enough of a whiny little kid to make a legal threat and they were unblocked anyway? I can't agree with this. Legal threats should pretty much be it - I can't think of much of a stronger indication that someone is not the kind of editor we want around here. Cut newbies some slack, certainly, but the minute someone displays an attitude of "screw you, I'll do what I want" then it's time to show them the door. Friday (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How about warn them, block them (48 hours or a week or whatever), then the door? -- (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that calling them a "whiny little kid" helps here. They retracted the legal threat, which was made in the heat of the moment and in the face of a block that nobody has really been able to justify. TigerShark (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you blame her for wanting to take legal action? Getting blocked for being friendly is ridiculous. If someone nominated that particular policy for deletion, they'd have my full support.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear from what they're writing on their userpages that they see themselves as heroes, playing out some grand drama of them fighting the good fight versus those evil admins. Sadly, what's been done here has played into their little fantasies instead discouraging them from thinking such nonsense. If they're going to be unblocked, someone needs to babysit them to try to undo the damage we've done here. TigerShark, I assume you're volunteering for this task? Friday (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If he doesn't I will.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this has become a drama when it never needed to. What do you think caused that drama? My actions? TigerShark (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, yes, I can blame her for going straight to a legal thread for getting blocked from a website. That's a pretty big overreaction. Glad she's redacted that now, but it's not a good idea to respond to criticism with threatening a lawsuit. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened here is, three other admins declined the unblock requests of these two editors (one of whom made about the strongest legal threat I've seen lately) and at least three other editors supported these blocks yet a single admin unblocked them without consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And likely that action will stand. I don't think anyone's willing to wheel war over this, and chances are pretty good that the users have learned their lesson. If they haven't, it's not like it's difficult to block them again. Shall we just let it lie for now and see what happens? lifebaka++ 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone already did wheel war but never mind. Very happily and helpfully, nobody else took it up. As I said from the beginning, I was planning on talking with each of these editors and would have been startled if we hadn't wound up unblocking most (if not all) of them, after finding ways to help them tone down the MySpaceyness whilst still having fun and contributing meaningfully to the project. As you say, hopefully they've learned from this. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a bit harsh to accuse me of wheel warring after I genuinely tried to discuss this with you. I have asked you several times to justify the blocks with a policy based reason or with an explanation of what the blocks were preventing. All you have done is say that the blocks were declined by other admins and mention WP:MYSPACE and WP:NOR, plus something about them "badgering". When I have followed these up you have never given any details that justify a block. You can accuse me of whatever you like, but perhaps you want to take this opportunity to provide a justification (again based on policy or what was being prevented). I feel that I can justify my actions, can you? TigerShark (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You wholly ignored my thorough explanations many times, asking the same questions over and over again as if I'd said nothing at all, so I'm not startled to see you carrying on with that. You wheel warred alone against a consensus of at least seven admins. You assumed bad faith on the part of the Sonic editors by claiming they would come back as vandals, even while I clearly said from the beginning that I saw good faith among them. You assumed bad faith on the part of other admins and topped it off by misquoting and misleadingly paraphrasing explanations and discussions (even while claiming these explanations didn't happen). The pith is, it's likely we both were hoping for very similar outcomes, but you didn't have faith in anyone involved, or in consensus, so you skirted what everyone else was doing and tried to "fix" things yourself. You won't agree with me, I'm ok with that, this is a collaborative project, so far as I care, we're done. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that I have not seen an explanation grounded in policy or in preventing a problem. Can you give one? Are you really claiming that you assumed good faith? You comments to the editors were along the lines of "you clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia, so I have blocked you". How is that assuming good faith, when they had made many article contributions? TigerShark (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The last I heard, it is not within policy to use Wikipedia for anything other than building an encyclopedia. As I and others have told you many times, their article contributions were thin, shallow and largely orginal research, along with being much outweighed by their userspace edits. I would also add that they rudely rebuffed efforts to talk about these worries before they were blocked and one of them resorted to legal threats when she was blocked. Are we done yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, saying these editors were all here to build an encyclopedia isn't really accurate as most of their edits didn't really add anything. Gwen blocked them, but clearly pointed out that the block would be lifted if they expressed an understanding of what wikipedia is actually for. One blocked editor responded with a legal threat, which clearly shows they didn't have an understanding of wikipedia in the first place. Now that the editors have been reinstated, they seem to understand wikipedia, and the expectations of an editor. I don't see why this is even still an issue. Dayewalker (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile they're talking on their own about a way to do most of the chat stuff off-wiki, which I think is very cool. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Told you I'd help sort it out. But we're going to be giving lessons in userspace. I'll try to get to Talon & Person to edit more.Fairfieldfencer FFF 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the best way to learn here is to go for it and edit articles straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think SLJ has learned anything. He requested that I undelete every single one of his userboxes (at least 4 dozen of them), and after reviewing 4 of them again while deleted, I said I was not going to bother. If this is the first thing he wants to do as soon as he's been blocked for WP:NOTMYSPACE, then I think that TigerShark's unblock was completely wrong here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree. Since the unblock, he's got a grand total of 18 contributions outside of User:, User talk:, and Wikipedia:. Several of those edits weren't even constructive improvements, just the reversion of vandalism. That's great and all, but there is practically no motivation towards building the encyclopedia, especially compared to the extensive forum-shopping effort he put into getting half a zillion userboxes restored. Absolutely ridiculous. If Tiger can get off with an hour's "discussion" and it not be considered wheel warring, I'm going to give it and hour and a half. If no objections, he's reblocked for two weeks (NOT indefinite). Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Given what I've seen over the past few hours, I do think the unblock was a mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with the reblock. MBisanz talk 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Also to be considered is this user's past block log - incivility and edit warring block July 21, attacks and immaturity a week later. While the attacks have toned down, I don't see that the maturity level has improved much. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with the reblock. The original block being lifted with no consequence or understanding didn't help this situation at all. Dayewalker (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I am also in agreement for a reblock. The original unblock did not help matters as it was done without consensus or discussion (discussions in the night and with such short durations are not conductive to reasoned talks). seicer | talk | contribs 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Against my better judgement, User:DragonflySixtyseven has proposed a deal to return the code of the offending userboxes only, subst'd directly onto SJL's userpage. If, however, he recreates them as templates, he is to be indefinitely blocked for WP:MYSPACE. Again, if there are any objections.... Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Just sounding this out to ask if the community feels that offering mentoring or guidance would be a useful alternative in this situation as an alternative? I edit in a similar area to SLJ and would be happy to offer my assitance and suport in trying to guide his efforts, on the understanding that he in turn passes this on to others. I'd be interested to know if the community feels that this would be a suitable approach and if they would feel comfortable endorsing such a proposal. Many thanks, Gazimoff 09:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If it keeps him out of trouble, then I think I speak for all of us when I say, "sounds like a good idea." But he's been talking about leaving Wikipedia. But he's said that before and come back, (obviously). I'll ask him about it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That does sound like a good idea, if he's willing to do so. Now that his userboxes are back, it does seem as though he's actually working on articles, but it definitely wouldn't hurt to have someone keep him on the right track. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave them alone. They're not hurting anything. Even if they've made just a single good-faith article contribution, that's enough to make it worthwhile to let them do whatever "social networking" they want as long as it doesn't cause any actual problems. See my essay Why Do You Care? and spend your limited time and energy fighting stuff that actually matters. Sheesh. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Where would you put the bounds? Would one single helpful revert of vandalism "buy" 500 social networking edits? 5,000? 50,000? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, why not? As long as they're not actually hurting anything, there are more useful things the rest of us can be doing. This just seems like pettiness on your part for no productive purpose. Stop it. You're not actually doing anything good here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying giving the bandwidth and server space for 50,000 social networking edits (and images and whatever else) in return for one helpful rv would be worthwhile? How many accounts would this web hosting deal be open to? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
How many useful edits buy wasting so much time and effort trying to get rid of a few editors enjoying themselves? DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
How many is a few? Where are the bounds? Would the bandwidth and server space for 50,000 social networking edits (and images and whatever else), never mind the volunteer admin load, in return for one helpful rv be worthwhile? How many accounts would this web hosting deal be open to?Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If you ignore it (as you should), what "admin load" is there? Why are bandwidth and server space any of our concerns? Don't worry about them. Stop it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you don't care. I only wanted to understand. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I support mentoring too. Sceptre (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop issuing imperatives, Kurt. You have absolutely no right to do that. Like anyone will do what you say anyway... LAWLZ. That's laughable. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that an imperative itself? Why do you think he would listen to yours?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought the irony would've been clear? I know he won't. He doesn't listen to anyone, apparently. But I know subconsciously things get through to him. He's human. There'll be things in his head quietly simmering away until he's about forty. That's when psychosis will hit him. Effortlessly predictable. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was a helpful. Is it based on your own experience? DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the balance of opinion seems to be that offering mentoring would be sensible I'll pass the suggestion on to SLJ. Please drop me a note if you would like to be informed of its progress. Many thanks, Gazimoff 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's now a moot point. The offer has been declined, for now at least, though the offer is still open. Gazimoff 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Privatemusings arbitration remedy[edit]

Proposal to overturn here. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you moved it here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to overturn Privatemusings' arbcom restrictions[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: The Arbcom thread seems to be handling this better. As always, any unresolved issues can be restarted in their own sections or taken to talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(moved to AN per many suggestions) NonvocalScream (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed: By consensus of the community (should such consensus be found below), remedy #2 of the Arbcom case "Privatemusings" is hereby overturned. (background: arbitrators have indicated that the restriction is being kept in place to penalize his attitude towards arbcom rather than out of a genuine need.[27] This constitutes a dereliction of the committee's duty to the community, and the committee is clearly no longer competent to decide this case.) --Random832 (contribs) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - arbcom have not yet commented on it since my proposed remedy. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn — I think the 90-day block and an indefinite restriction from editing BLP article is out of hand. If he begins to commit serious BLP violations, then greater penalties should be meted out. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 08:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This doesn't seem the right place to be making this type of proposal. -- Fyslee / talk 08:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Contrary to Random832's contention, arbitrators have not indicated that Privatemusings' restriction on biographies of living people is being retained "to penalise his attitude towards arbcom". Privatemusings can't edit BLP articles so we can't directly assess what would happen if his restriction was removed. When considering whether to lift the restriction, arbitrators tend to look to an editors' general behaviour. If they are spotted editing pages they shouldn't, or making disruptive proposals anywhere, this counts against removing restrictions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I see it's been an interesting wiki weekend! - Sam - in taking a look at my general behaviour, did you have a look at the many BLP suggestions I've been making over the last month or so at my mentoring page? - I'm not really sure how you could have missed that page with even a cursory look at my contributions, and I'm not sure you would have made the above comment if you had seen the page... hmmmm.... about the "editing pages they shouldn't" bit - are you sure that this page "shouldn't" be edited at all by the likes of me? (I was genuinely unaware of this policy being different to any other) - why not protect it? I felt consensus was clear after substantial discussion, and was glad when the section was added to the policy.
Obviously I'd like the restriction lifted, and it seems others may be reading events the same way as Random - I really appreciate this community discussion, and will follow it with great interest. My talk page is always open if anyone has any questions.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I'm with Fyslee and Sam: I don't see how it is assumed that the arbitrators were just making a WP:POINT with PM (fact tag applied in humor more than anything else), and this doesn't seem to be the right venue for overturning ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If the arbitration committee believe that editors are not permitted to edit the arbitration policy it should protect the page to make this clear. I don't see how making a (relatively minor) edit to a policy, being reverted, and accepting the reversion can be considered disruptive. As for the other diff you offer as evidence, I don't think most people would consider that proposal disruptive or indicative at all of his ability to edit BLPs; it's actually a fairly amusing proposal and not at all malicious. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sam, its funny the only examples you use as disruptive editing were edits relating to arbcom, and the edits were not all that disruptive. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I don't see where the damge can occur, many editors are watching him and the restriction has already done its job. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn He has learned his lesson and I feel is very trustworthy. Bstone (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn: Sanctions should preventative, and not used to punish. The sanctions are greater than necessary, and overturning this one should do no harm...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn: Dozens of editors have been either lightly to absurdly/disruptively critical of the Arbcom over the Cla/SV/FM arbitration which is about to hit four months of non-activity. Singling out Privatemusings for that isn't helpful, and the general community that elected the Arbcom can do something like this if there is consensus. Besides, if he screws up even once on a BLP edit afterwards I'd give it <30 minutes before he's hauled in front of ANI to renew the sanctions with a valid community mandate that has teeth. rootology (T) 15:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn As others have said, sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. This goes farther than it needs to, and I don't see how keeping it in place benefits the wiki at large. While I always assume good faith, I can't help but notice the two coincidental facts that the user has an attitude critical of arbcom and that he is receiving much more than regular sanctions for this type of offense. Celarnor Talk to me 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • VP has no standing to overturn an arbcom ruling. So I'll merely comment here... to say overturn is rather presumptious. While I have some considerable sympathy to the comments of the arbitrators that PM ought not to get quite so involved in meta matters (and I've counseled him that way more than once, see my talk and his garden page), I do think that he's shown his mettle with respect to BLP matters now, and I'd advocate lifting the restriction.... ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus can change? Just tossing it out for Devil's Advocate... rootology (T) 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I'm under the impression that that particular page was not an actual Committee, but discussion about a Committee that never resulted in anything. Ral315 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Venue error - should be on WP:RFAr. Did anyone actually mention this to the arbitrators, perchance? - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think discussion here is ok, regardless of the venue. The arbitrators know, because its on the RFAR page by random832. Even if this is impotent, the message is clear. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If it's impotent, there's really nothing but Wikidrama to it. Really, this would be better handled through an WP:RfC than through a straw poll on the Village Pump. Polling here is going to accomplish nothing, but an RfC at least has some legitimacy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, process is not important here. What is important is that the arbitrators see this discussion, no matter the location. I don't think they will say "It was not in the RFC namespace, so we won't listen". Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wish we could overturn but I don't think that we can. I strongly urge the arbitrators to overturn it (rather than forcing a showdown against the community on village pump). SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not? We elect them to serve us as a dispute resolution venue, not to be our invulnerable overlords. A people's nullification is badly needed to set an example for the Committee, and this is an excellent candidate for it. Celarnor Talk to me 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Because by overturning this committee that we have put into power without a formalized-by-policy method of doing so, we are setting a precedent that all of their decisions can be overturned by a group of people who think they know better. In essence, we would be destroying our current arbcom, and creating little mini-VP arbcoms whenever we don't like a decision. No, this cannot happen. I want to see PM's sanctions lifted as much as anyone else, but it must be the arbitrators, or some other "higher authority" such as Jimbo that does so. Not the Village Pump. SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct, this is symbolic. For this to be binding would have many implications. If it is done, it must be one by the committee. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Questions: Who is planning to close this discussion? If they close it as "overturn," what is supposed to happen then? Isn't all this is doing basically sanctioning wheel-warring, since if this proposal passes both an admin who blocks PM for editing a BLP article and one who unblocks him can claim to be following procedure? And in adjudicating such a wheel-war, what on earth would arbcom's position be? Chick Bowen 16:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a display of community opinion. I don't think we can actually overturn. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, someone comes around who favors old-school consensus over elitism. Although, as NonvocalScream has pointed out, the community has lost its power, so we have to rely on the good graces of the admins and bureaucrats to keep the oligarchs in check, which is an unlikely outcome. Celarnor Talk to me 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Nonvocal Scream and Swatjester. DurovaCharge! 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose overturn. The village pump is a poor choice of venue for discussion of overturning an arbitration remedy. Discussion such as this should be done "by the book" and with as little deviation from our norms as possible, lest any consensus derived from here be void: until a move is made to a more appropriate forum (I recommend theadministrators' noticeboard or a requests for comment), I'm unwilling to offer my support here regardless of the situation's specifics. Furthermore, I am not convinced of the legitimacy of this thread: it seems to be to be an opportunity for editors who hold an anti-ArbCom stance to facilitate the undermining of the committee by the community. That's not fair on Privatemusings, not helpful to the encyclopedia, and not the way to bring about change; and yet, I fear that is what is really happening here.

    As a comment re/ the specifics of Privatemusings' case, it case seems to me to be that he is "making tracks in the right direction" -- however, more work is needed. On the condition that Privatemusings continues to make positive improvements in his approach to wikipedia's BLP articles, including "toning down" his contrib's to the more high profile BLP articles to be more reasonable, I would be happy to file proceedings with the Committee in (roughly) three month's time, to have his restriction loosened or (if appropriate) lifted. We're a tad too early at the moment, for a few reasons (※ Sam Blacketer's comments during the most recent appeal against PM's BLP restriction), but it's not far to go now. However, this discussion is certainly not the way to go, and I'm simply relieved Privatemusings hasn't instigated this thread himself. Anthøny 17:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

While the Committee (as an entity, taking into account its history of overstepping powers granted it by the community, et cetra, not meant as an insult to the current incarnation) has a lot of problems, I think the community is headed in the right direction in terms of reforming it into something more useful and managable by the electorate since the recent RFA. I wouldn't necessarily call those who commented here 'anti-arbcom' solely based on the fact that they don't appreciate the body's bias in making decisions that affect the ability of a user to edit and that the community is left with no recourse but a sort of people's nullification; personally, I think we need an ArbCom, but what we don't need is one we can't control. It shouldn't matter where discussion is held; the important thing is that it is held. Process for the sake of process is ridiculous. The important thing is that the discussion is held in a highly public, neutral venue; I can't think of anything more neutral and highly public than the village pump, so I would argue that this is the perfect place for this kind of discussion. Celarnor Talk to me 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you actually want this to happen, why don't you raise it as an appeal to ArbCom (somewhere on the RfAr pages) instead of presenting it in the form of an insult here that they should rightly ignore? If you're right about this issue, you're still wrong about this approach.--Father Goose (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As I am sure it is referenced more than three times in this discussion and in the proposal, this is in reference to a request already at RFAR. o.O NonvocalScream (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it is inappropriate for a consensus among dozen or two editors to override the consensus of a committee chosen by hundreds of Wikipedians for the purpose of handling cases just like this. If the community doesn't have faith in the decisions of the ArbCom it should deal with that problem directly. PM's topic ban is a very minor issue, and even if it were unneccessary it does negligible harm to the project. OTOH, undercutting the ArbCom would have a tremendous effect and I can't see how it would benefit the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose overturning Given PM's past record of editing in violation of his restriction, attempting to coerce uninvolved admins to proxy-edit for him, announcing his intention to defy his restriction twice, I cannot support overturning this restriction. MBisanz talk 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose overturning; Privatemusings' behavior has indicated willful disregard toward the remedy, going so far as to ignore it at one point. I don't believe removing it would have a positive effect on the encyclopedia. And for the record, this is the wrong way to go about this. Ral315 (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose overturning I don't believe we as a community should be overturning AC decisions unless they are egregiously wrong. Even if you disagree with this remedy, it is clearly not unreasonable. To promote the general effectiveness of Arbitration decisions, only outrageous ones should be overturned. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closure[edit]

User:HandThatFeeds attempted to close this as "improper venue for discussion". I reverted this. Discussion is ok, should not be silenced. Venue is not important here. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree completely but, eh, not worth stressing over. I'm not trying to silence discussion, but this is just straw-polling, not discussion. Venue is important if you want to actually accomplish anything, rather than just sitting around navel gazing. (Good god, we have articles on everything!) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think closure on that basis was entirely appropriate. Aside from the merits of the proposal itself, these things are normally discussed at AN or ANI when they come up at all. DurovaCharge! 18:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure even ANI is suited for this. My close message proposed an WP:RfC, as that would allow people to provide much more input than this, and allow for more nuanced discussion. If the purpose is to overturn ArbCom... well, realistically, that won't happen. If the purpose is to bring attention to this matter to ArbCom, then an RfC is much more effective than this show of hands. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about this, I'm positive this is the wrong venue, for one simple reason: take a look at how large this discussion has become in less than a day. Give it 5 days, and how much of VPR will it have taken over? This is either going to overwhelm VPR, or get moved to a sub-page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the community has been known to add remedies on top of what ArbCom has imposed. Overturning an ArbCom remedy is a different matter: it would be a radical move, especially since the Committee recently confirmed its decision in this instance. With respect toward PrivateMusings (whom I collaborate with in other matters), this particular proposal attempts to open two or three different cans of worms simultaneously. No matter how I feel about the merits of his sanction (or the current state of ArbCom), this proposal is crafted and presented in a way that would set too many difficult precedents. DurovaCharge! 18:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova, this should have been at WP:AN instead. SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, why should this be at WP:AN? Is this something only adminstrators should be aware of, or is the administrators' noticeboard the new, de-facto community noticeboard? --Conti| 23:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There were a few suggestions to move to AN. I can't make everyone happy. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen them above. And I'm curious about the reasons for those suggestions. --Conti| 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What, overturn it on the grounds that he violated it almost from the outset? Not, perhaps, the very best idea I've ever heard. PM still does not even seem to accept that he did anything wrong, so overturning the remedy would not IMO be a terribly good idea. He spent the whole of the time he was banned telling everyone that he'd done nothing wrong, and is doing so still. His edits to the di Stefano and King articles were, as the arbitration case found, careless. In the di Stefano case, he also completely failed to heed wise counsel. And he edited BLPs as soon as he came back. So I'd not ereally be comfortable with overturning a sanciton imposed for good cause without evidence that PM is prepared to abide by it - i.e. show self-control and self discipline. Guy (Help!)
    • No, overturn on the grounds that it's being kept in place for a reason other than a concern that his future edits to BLPs would be problematic. If you are concerned that his edits would be problematic (a concern that the arbitrators do not in fact share, based on the fact that Sam Blacketer has said he would have considered lifting it if PM had not criticized arbcom) you're welcome to watch his edits yourself. --Random832 (contribs) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you are materially misrepresenting Sam Blacketer's statement above. My opposition to removing the sanction at this time is not based on criticism of the Arbitration Committee. To the best of my knowledge, it is not the basis of other arbitrators' objections either. However, I think that the Committee would be more open to defining a clear timetable (with strong pre- and post-conditions) for removing this restriction and would support a sensible proposal along these lines. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify something: any discussion of this type must be considered absolutely a nonbinding discussion. There is no possibility for "By consensus of the community a decision of the ArbCom is hereby overturned." If the time has come for Privatemusings to make an appeal, and if he has many good people in the community willing to vouch for him, then I am sure that both the ArbCom and myself will deal with it appropriately. This idea of ArbCom vs. the Community is poisonous, please do not let that kind of meme take hold.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo above. I like the fact we are having this discussion, it is however, nonbinding. But I encourage it to continue. The committee executes our will, I'm sure they will see this. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. The ArbCom is intended to handle issues which the community can't solve on its own. In cases where the community can come to a consensus on something (and I have no idea if that is the case here) there is no need to involve the ArbCom. Haukur (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"ArbCom vs. the Community" can only take hold if the two parties are thinking in different directions, and if that is the case it is hard to avoid. If we value having the ArbCom and the Community being on the same page, it seems pretty clear to me which party should be the accomodating one. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"ArbCom vs. the Community" is, I am afraid, being fostered by the ArbCom, not the Community. You should also note that there is an RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee) in progress that aims to review and reform the Arbitration Process. I do not believe that the people who have contributed to this process believe that it's only 'advisory'. We intend to actualy change the Arbitration Policy. The Arbitration Committee must be accountable to the community. I hope you will not block this. --Barberio (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that a community discussion can never reverse a decision taken by ArbCom? Doesn't that do against everything we're supposed to believe about community supremacy? Puzzled. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, this "Arbcom vs. the Community" stuff all stems from the community having very little faith in the present Arbcom members. Mostly because they have been twiddling their thumbs for three months now on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. I do not believe most of the present Arbcom are capable of dealing with anything other than simple cases in an appropriate manner. Neıl 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The key here is that this is a consensus based project, ultimately the arbcom works for the editors, not the other way around. Arbcom needs the community to support and carry out its rulings, or it is powerless. Arbcom has been growing more and mroe separated from editors since its inception, and that is causing a whole lot of issues. Ultimately some editors and arbcom members need to be reminded who works for whom. Prodego talk 03:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that the delays in that case are getting kind of ridiculous, but ArbCom do seem to be pretty good at handling smaller, less controversial cases, and I'd say one they've already ruled on fits the bill for that. Orderinchaos 04:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to consider a true "Arbcom vs. the Community", I myself start paraphrasing Ronald Reagan-- My idea of the Community versus The Arbcom mmembers is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win and they lose. [28] , we of course, being the larger community.
If the community ever has a consensus, a true consensus, with a truly representative sampling of the community--- then it's essentially a policy and thats the end of story. Arbs are there to resolve disputes when no consensus can be found-- not to dictate the results of disputes in cases where consensus has been achieved.
But totally premature to try to argue that abstract debate here. For one, I don't seem myself arguing for a community-based Jury nullification in this case. And secondly, this is a simple case-- if there's was an actual consensus here, arbcom would support it, I'm sure; so in the end, it doesn't matter one way or the other what we would do if arbcom ever tried to go against consensus. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia. But the community certainly can decide not to enfoce an ArbCom restriction. As in some other recent cases, there are probably good reasons for the ArbCom's behavior, but they are not communicated to the community well enough. In this case, arbitrators should try not to come across as using criticism of their actions as a reason for seemingly unrelated editing restrictions. In the C68-SV-FM case, it would be nice to get signals from ArbCom of the type "we're still working on it" or "evidence is still welcome that might help us decide either way". A breakdown of communication in the OM case has recently damaged the ArbCom's reputation; now we find (at least) two more communication problems. Clarity and openness from the ArbCom (along with the regained trust by the community that comes with openness) could probably help against the "ArbCom against community" meme more than disallowing organized dissent. Kusma (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for patience[edit]

Hi, could we suspend this discussion for a little while? I've had an idea that might resolve this pretty well on all sides. Am getting in contact with Private Musings and if he agrees I'll move forward formally. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 03:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and believe the discussion should continue concurrently with the AC review, and the appeal to Jimbo. Incidentally, I have offered this, anything I can do to help you and help this editor edit productively, let me know. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Proposal_by_Durova. I hope that's generally acceptable (it is to Privatemusings). Requesting courtesy closure of this thread in the interests of drama reduction. With respect toward all, DurovaCharge! 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope the arb.s will look at the mentoring suggestions now at the arb page (and I'm glad that recent comment may be moving in that direction...) - on a 'point of order' I'd hope that a very strong community consensus could certainly supersede any arbcom decision, and believe open discussion of this sort of thing to be healthy and a 'good thing' :-) I can't honestly say right now that there's a strong enough consensus for me to be able to edit freely immediately - but I do find it interesting to look at all rationales presented.... I'm afraid I find some comments to have lacked rigour in their examination of current events.. your mileage may vary of course... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
PM, the problem was careless - in some cases almost wilfully so - editing of biographies, along with hopping accounts to avoid scrutiny. You've devoted an enormous amount of time, effort and energy to trying to prove that you did nothing wrong, but very little as far as I can tell to showing that you understand that, for example, warring with Fred over an article on probably the single most litigious WP:BLP subject the project has ever seen was a spectacularly bad idea. And all the debate above does not actually address that. You're not restricted from BLPs because you criticised ArbCom, you're restricted due to calreless editing of BLPs with a coplete lack of any evidence of acceptance that there was a problem. One might justly criticise ArbCom for the severity of the measures against you, but the outcome was, I believe, entirely right: you were using alternate accounts in a way well outside community norms, and you were editing extremely sensitive articles in a way that was not in the least bit sensitive. You are a very pleasant fellow, but you still seem to be fighting the original case. As any parole officer will tell you, parole comes after the prisoner has accepted their guilt. And guilty you were, I'm afraid, caught bang to rights. Now, I personally don't think you're at all evil, I think you just got carried away. The characters whose articles you were editing are controversial and certainly not at all the kinds of people I would choose to socialise with (understatement alert). But we have to be very careful, and in the di Stefano case in particular you took against someone who had been carefully negotiating in numbingly tedious detail with a highly vocal, well-connected, powerful, rich and extremely litigious individual. That was well beyond not smart. Do please point me to the place where you have accepted that this was a foolish thing to do and shown that you would never do such a thing again, because that was the major problem the arbitrators had with you, as far as I can tell.
To the rest, I think this is drawing needlsess battle lines. Standing PM up as a crusader because he's a nice guy is not going to undo the fact that he took on someone in direct contact with a very difficult customer, when the prudent thing to do was to walk briskly in the opposite direction. That's not ArbCom v. rest of world, it's ArbCom v. jeopardising the entire project (and yes, di Stefano does indeed have the wherewithal to sue the foundation into the ground). Wikipedia is enormously high profile, and our structures are unbelievably free and easy under the circumstances. Anybody who handles OTRS or who talks privately to Jimbo about cases like di Stefano will rapidly understand that here we are only scratching the surface of a problem which has the potential, if not handled tactfully, to bankrupt the project in one hit. It really is not a case of free speech and the nasty arbs doing down the nice guy. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Does this have anything to do with a stalled arbitration case? Because I'm reading this and considering the rather particular way that *you* handle certain cases, Guy. It would really help if you could say how you know when to take the "walk briskly in the other direction" approach (which you say PM should have done, and I agree with you there) and the sometimes excessive "Guy" approach (see aforementioned arbitration case), because I can never tell which approach is best. Which is why, I think, the best approach (one that I see others adopt - I can't in all honesty say I'm active enough in resolving such disputes to say that I adopt it myself) is to tread carefully in all such cases, and avoid offending people. The only case I remember recently is the Ian Blair article, and that has gone pear-shaped again the last time I looked at it (in the sense that lots of the material you excised has returned to the article). I recall that the last time you went there you cut it down to a stub. What now? BLPs are a problem that will never go away. Focusing attention on PM doesn't really help. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As of now, the proposal is for mentorship with three experienced Wikipedians and review at the end of a 90 day period. If serious problems arise, any member of ArbCom may intervene to reimpose the full sanction. Privatemusings responded well to mentorship on Commons earlier this year, so this may work out for the best. Three arbitrators have responded so far and all of them accept the proposal. With thanks toward everyone who participated, this situation may be in hand enough to mark this thread resolved? Best regards, DurovaCharge! 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Admin AfD no