Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive253

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

Noticeboard archives


Block on User:Thewinchester[edit]

I am very concerned about the basis of the block of Thewinchester, who is one of the most active editors on the Australian wikiprojects and active in vandal-fighting, checking of company articles for verifiability and the like.

On reading WP:BLOCK I see that "persistent gross incivility or gross harassment" is the standard required to achieve a block, and under "When blocking may not be used", cool-down blocks are explicitly listed. In the case of this user, who was guilty of posting one incivil talk page post [1], no warning of any kind was issued and the block itself appears not to assume good faith. Personally I would have gone for an agf-2 warning.

Could someone who is not involved please review this block? Orderinchaos 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Thewinchester has been block by User:WJBscribe with the reason I have blocked you for 9 hours so that you can cool down a bit this is in violation of WP:BLOCK. the unblock request was denied by User:Riana citing gross incivility, yet the language used by Thewindchester while heated is not the most offensive language used in discussion on User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Further more there was no request for Thewindchester to reconsider/withdraw or appologise for the comments neither was any warning given prior to the block. This incident needs to be looked at by an uninvolved party. Gnangarra 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The 'Oh, for fuck's sake' on Jeffrey's talk page is written by Jeffrey himself. Riana 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's clearly inappropriate, I fully endorse the block there, I really can't see a reason to complain about it, we can block for obvious incivility which in this case, that's what there was. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thewinchester acted like a dick, and when he got slapped for it he started bitching about it. All he needs to do is recognise that he was out of line and apologise, and I'm sure he'll be unblocked, but the comment was indeed way out of line. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd say this comment is also uncivil also a similar comment was left on Thewinchester talk page. Gnangarra 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Further to what I said just then after looking at WJB's talk page, I really cannot understand why you two are making such a big deal of this, the block was clearly appropriate, it was reviewed by a neutral admin who agreed with the block and to be honest - it was a clear personal attack which an established user should know better not to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
To clarify. My block was not a "cool down block", though I advised the blocked user to use the opportunity to step back and cool down. His comments to Jeffrey were outrageous and unacceptable. He is clearly aware of our polices in this area and chose to trample across them. He response to the block has to been to quibble the reasons for it. He has made no undertaking to apologise or to moderate his conduct. I have made it clear on my talkpage that I would unblock if he were willing to apologise to Jeffrey and showed signs of having calmed and be more likely to behave appropriately in future. WjBscribe 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 9 hours so that you can cool down a bit. [2] Orderinchaos 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 15:08, May 31, 2007 WJBscribe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Thewinchester (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 9 hours (incivility at User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson) - where does it say cool down in my block summary? That was advice on his talkpage. WjBscribe 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why Template talk:Coord comments by User:Pigsonthewing are acceptable conduct from a user with a past history with Arbcom and revert parole (I suggest checking contribs too) but Thewinchester with no warnings and a good history is treated so much differently? Orderinchaos 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As I asked on my talkpage, diffs? WjBscribe 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This in response to a simple (and fair) question: [3], and almost every second edit on [4] (just look at those summaries, for a starter) Orderinchaos 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not seeing anything that bad. He doesn't seem to be screaming that others are complete idiots. And the diff you point me to was over a week ago... Not much can be done about it now. WjBscribe 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The language in that edit is *less* civil than Thewinchester's in the diff in question, and consistency knows no time boundaries - if we're going to start blocking people for use of the word "idiot", we might as well start now with half the userbase. Orderinchaos 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
As required Thewinchester has apologised he has also ask why the uncivil comments by Guy have had no response? Gnangarra 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where the apology is... The "I'm sorry" is being used as a figure of speech, not to mean "I apologise". "I'm sorry, but can anyone not see the irony of this." is not an apology and certainly not an undertaking to apologise to Jeffrey. WjBscribe 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, thats not much of an apology, and I'd reckon that any from this user at this point will likely be one of those "see, I apologized, now unblock me!!1!" deals. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that's not an apology. As for the "cool down blocks," I think the point there is that users should not be blocked just because they're angry. But the policy needs clarification: It is certainly okay to block someone that's angry and has been editing inappropriately, and it's appropriate to tell them to cool off when you do so. Mangojuicetalk 16:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
(Thewinchester has noted that he never claimed it was an apology.) Per "editing inappropriately", what in his contribs suggests this? All I see is a lot of reasonably positive AfD participation and article editing. I believe blocking should be preventative rather than punitive (and I believe policy is clearly on my side on this) Orderinchaos 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth at this point, I agree with both the block and with the WP:BP interpretation of Mangojuice above. Disruptive incivility should be blocked. The cooldown effect is (well, maybe not here) an added benefit, not the grounds for the block itself. Sandstein 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
How was the incivility in the diff "disruptive"? Orderinchaos 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation here is now that whatever the discussion, however the result the damage caused by not warning first is irreparable. Continuation of the block will not result in any "cooling down" as was quest when blocking. Also it quite obvious that any/another apology will also be pointless as however its delivered it will be perceived as meaningless. Leaving Thewinchester bitter can only detremental in the long term. The question now is how do we move forward with the problem, I think that an assumption of good faith should be extended to Thewinchester by lifting the block with a condition that he doesnt enter into discussion with User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson or the blocking/reviewing editors for an agreed period of time, say the original 9 hours. Gnangarra 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No we don't need to unblock, WJB has made it perfectly clear the ground on which he is willing to unblock, with a firm appology, if this hasn't come yet, I see no reason to unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I will not unblock on this basis as I don't see what Thewinchester has done to warrant this gesture. He does not seem to have acknowledged that his conduct was out of order (and the asked for apology has not been forthcoming - sincere or not). However, I will obviously respect any consensus that develops here than such an unblock is appropriate. WjBscribe 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have been fine with unblocking if Thewinchester had indicated any sort of remorse for his sudden attack on Jeffrey. I saw none. I'm an AGF-y person, but I can't do so with "I will go as far as calling you a complete idiot". Riana 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's it. This is just insane. You guys let User:Joestella off with everything ([5] under "South Australian general election campaign, 2006", this AfD, my talk page for April, Joe's user page, talk comments at this user's page, this attack-dog style process, POV forking and abuse and name-calling of anyone who disagrees with him etc etc), Orderinchaos raised it at this ANI and I raised it a few days later at this ANI and he was allowed to continue to go unchecked, I was told to "assume good faith" [6] even while he continued to act that way. In the end I got sick of the abuse and chose to leave. I got five or six emails asking me to come back and in the end I have decided to. But incidents like this, where someone calls someone who happens to be an admin an idiot on their talk page possibly after having a bad day, dunno, aren't people allowed to have a bad day? Anyway, the decision above is completely unacceptable and I personally will hold you guys to account for it if or when this guy ever returns. You now have no excuse for inaction. DanielT5 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any different from Giano's block which was undone in moments, except, of course, Thewinchester isn't Giano and so this is his first offence. Valued contributor with short fuse gets a little too curt with a sensitive admin. I won't do it myself, but would urge that Thewinchester be unblocked, and we'll assume he's learnt his lesson. Neil () 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely with the above post. He should be unblocked. And we should have a discussion about what the block policy is, when to use it, and why cases like mine were not addressed while cases like this got immediate attention and disproportionate action. I'm thinking of opening up an RfC on this very subject. DanielT5 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't approve of the user's posts, but would probably have warned rather than blocked. This is an experienced, good-faith contributor. I do note, however, that the block will soon expire by time. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, finally the block has finally expired it's time to provide some much-needed context and information to clarify the issue. First and foremost, had the original blocking and pile-on admins followed due process and issued a warning (such as uw-agf2), it is likely that the comments might at the very least been rectified or retracted altogether. Instead, WjBScribe (an admin with less than 6wks admin expeirence) chose not to assume good faith on the part of the editor in question, and issued a punitive block less than 10min after the comment had been made. Further to the block, the block in question was issued with the sole purpose of being a cool down block (diff), despite his assertions to the contary within this AN/I discussion, where he has used various weasel words to try and suggest otherwise in a style reminiscent of Wikilawyering. The editor in question was given no opportunity to respond let alone correct the issues they perceived with the editors actions. The problem was compounded by a pile-on vote by a large section of admins, who I am duly informed by a reliable third party source that they themselves engaged in uncivil discussion towards the editor in question within a private IRC channel, one of their number who commented that the user should be banned from wikipedia for not having a clue (This is one of the more milder comments). Now, has been raised by DanielT5 and ors, this issue has clearly highlighted a significant lack of consistency and balance on the part of involved admins in terms applying civility and no personal attack policies as they related to incidents raised here in AN/I (Evidenced by comments in other current AN/I debates since relating to these and similar matters). Including current cases and issues cited to date by those commenting on this AN/I, users who have a clear demonstrated history of incivility and personal attacks towards other editors are more often than not ignored and left unactioned. In my specific case, a user with a significant body of work including but not limited to article research and improvement, project participation (including meetup organisation), vandal patrol, categories cleanup, image fair use issues, dealing with significantly difficult WP:CORP AfD debates which nobody else is prepared to wade into (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out Now Consulting (2nd Nomination) as the most recent example), and additionally recently opting in to help out with Mediation Cabal cases, is in comparison unfairly punished to the point where an admin who knows me personally has to recuse himself from taking action here simply to avoid being the subject of a likely admin pile-on against him which would no doubt result. Now I can understand the blocking admin and others involved not wanting to lose face over this matter, but to use a more modern interpretation of The Art of War, I would refer to the words of Kenny Rogers in The Gambler, You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, Know when to walk away and know when to run.. Other significant respected admins including Newyorkbrad (who's RfA incidentally passed 225/2/0 ) I have not ever had dealings with, have of their own accord come out and said that the block was premature and the editor should have been warned first and given an opportunity to deal with the issue. I would strongly request that this is reviewed, and the block is overturned and removed post expiry in recognition of the premature and unjustified action, plus the lack of good faith assumption on the part of the blocking admin and ors. Thewinchester (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt my actions were harsh. I stand by my decision however - I do not think volunteers should be subject to such attacks. By the way as small correction, I have been an admin for 2 months and not 6 weeks. I note that IRC has become fashionable to raise in these discussions. I did flag up your unblock request on #wikipedia-en-admins so it could be responded to quickly, however I made no comment about the matter. Riana responded to it. Other than that this the matter was not discussed on IRC as far as I recall. I do not question the validity of your other contributions to this project and I recognised that this behaviour was out of character. But your conduct towards Jeffery O. Gustafson was nonetheless unacceptable. I still hope you will apologise to him. WjBscribe 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt my actions were harsh. Can you please advise where I said that in my comments above? I did neither say nor suggest that the actions were harsh, and all you're doing is trying to take my comments out of context solely for the benefit of your own position. My disagreement with the matter at hand is on two fronts, the first being an inconsistent and unbalanced application of civility and no personal attack, which has been clearly and substantively demonstrated by a number of others admins and editors passing comment on this AN/I report. The second issue in the invalid justification for the block, a matter which you and ors know full well has been covered ad nauseum on my talk page. Your comments I note that IRC has become fashionable to raise in these discussions and subsequent references to IRC comment are as I have been duly informed by reliable third-party sources, a patent misrepresentation of the facts. For you to suggest otherwise is at best dishonesty and not keeping with the same policy you sought to punitively enforce against me. You by your own admission you are a new admin, and may need to realise considering the continued and growing community consensus by those not involved in the IRC conversations and subsequent pile-on, your block was extremely hasty and well beyond what needed to be done in this instance. I would strongly suggest you need to sit down and seriously consider walking back your actions rather than continuing to disrupting Wikipedia by holding onto the vain and pointless notion that the user should apologise over what is essentially a heat of the moment comment by a known good faith editor, for which both you and Jeffrey O. Gustafson concede would be pointless at this juncture given your actions in this matter and the length of time since the block. Is it any wonder that people like DanielT5 leave WP after being subjected increasing levels of wikistress? It's not, and in these cases can be easily caused by the cabal-like actions of overheated process-based editors which drive away a sizable chunk of good contributors. You claim to want to help Wikipedia by being an admin, so how about assuming some good faith and without prejudice walking back your actions to something a little more acceptable? Thewinchester (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What I see here is two people who have both acted inappropriately and are too vain to be the first to admit it. Thewinchester's comment was way out of line, and he should have apologised for it by now. WJBscribe's block was a total over-reaction and a obvious violation of blocking policy, and he should have apologised for it by now. At this point, as far as I'm concerned, whoever apologises first is declared the moral victor, and we can all put the issue behind us. Hesperian 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral party to the dispute, I feel that Hesperian's proposed solution is really the only way to move forward. Clearly, the original comment was unsolicited (i.e. not a reply to an attack from said editor, just a response to their actions elsewhere) and it's not hard to characterise it as a personal attack, and Thewinchester should have been called to account for it. However, heat-of-the-moment comments should be given a chance, especially from a contributor with no past history of bad behaviour on a matter which many people here have such a strong opinion on (i.e. the future of BJAODN). This did not happen, and the opinions on this AN/I section appear to be evenly split. WJBscribe should recognise that there is absolutely no shame in admitting one made a mistake - no human is perfect, especially with such a short history of service one would expect the odd mistake or two. Zivko85 06:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The sooner Hesperians and Zivko's remarks are taken on as sensible as to how this issue should be resolved - the better for all concerned SatuSuro 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

School Block Request[edit]

I am requesting a school block on the IP I am currently using. I am a student of the school and also an active wikipedian. I have become annoyed with the constant editing of people on this IP and it is causing our school and IP to look bad in the face of wikipedia. I also want to state that you may only need a small 19 day block because school closes is your choice though — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Have school officials considered subscribing to the RSS feed from the Talk page instead? It would be better for them to be proactive on this and police their own network. --Dynaflow babble 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The school has tried to police but they lose interest and then it all starts again, I figured a schoolblock would be the best step in ending pretty much everything...also if you did not notice they messed up putting up the "this is a school IP" warning and failed in scaring people from the way can I fix those? Just notice they have also asked for a school block.

P.S. The IT teacher here said he will be contacting you guys later. He is bound to forget but I will remind him.

Have someone in authority send an email to appropriate address from this page: Wikipedia:Contact_us ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Use an email address with the school's URL. -- Lima Golf Talk | Contributions 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Abusive moves by Gryffindor[edit]

Gryffindor (talk · contribs) has been using his admin powers to delete and move pages. In particular,

For his log, which demonstrates that he has deleted pages to perform these unilateral and disruptive moves, see here. I request that these moves be undone, pending an RfC on his behavior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

20 points from Gryffindor, 5 for Slytherin. - CHAIRBOY () 01:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Headmaster ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Curtis (50 Cent album)[edit]

Resolved: username blocked SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The Black Wall Street keeps reverting the article to a version that is incorrectly formatted, there seems to be an edit war going on. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 02:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

indefblocking per username. See The Black Wall Street Records which is founded by 50 cent's arch rival. SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Annnnnnd unblock request granted. The unblocking admin (can't remember nor pronounce his name anyway) likely did not notice that it is the name of a IS there on his talk page, but it's kind of buried among some other bluelinks, and I would have assumed that he had read this AN/I....I left a message on his talk page, there's no need to immediately reblock before consultation even though this is a cut an dry case. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

aaaaand reblocked by aforementioned admin. Case closed, move along. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Xavier cougat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

All this user has done so far is edit the Talk namespace, causing trouble and moaning about criticism sections for about every single article talk page he comments on. He said he thought Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't notable enough (words to that effect) and then when I told him he was wrong, he asked for a criticism section. I'm sure he's just a troublemaking account. Right now, I'm thinking an indef block is appropriate but would like to see if everyone else thinks I'm being too harsh? --Deskana (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow - every single one of his edits is some criticism of the article he's replying to, requesting things which are not in line with Wikipedia guidelines, and wasting people's time with tendentious argument. I'd support some kind of block for such behavior. --Haemo 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I failed to AGF from the early goings with this user, and bowed out early in an attempt to AGF and let other editors convince this user that his edits seemed disruptive. I've been watching since then though, and see no reason now for any further good faith to be assumed. This user is just trying to stir up controversial topics on talk pages. --OnoremDil 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User's blocked. He's not here to contribute to the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me play devil's advocate here. The guy (?) has been here for 2 days. He's not clear on how Wikipedia works, and has Wikipedia's talk pages confused with a discussion forum. Not OK, but these are common mistakes, especially for newbies. We do generally encourage people to utilize the talk page of controversial articles. We have Template:Uw-chat1 through Template:Uw-chat4 for such occasions, but I don't see anything approaching a final warning. Are we indef-blocking users who seem misguided and slow to catch on (but not out-and-out trolls or vandalism-only accounts) after only 2 days? I'm not saying this is a future FA-writer necessarily, but was the threat to the encyclopedia so great that we needed this indef-block? For the record, I disagree with the block. I don't feel strongly enough to unblock, but I'd welcome more feedback, because my sense is that we're being a bit hasty in indef-blocking misguided but harmless newbies under the "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" umbrella. I didn't see vandalism in my skim of the user's contributions - can we really judge a non-vandal's future encyclopedic contributions in 2 days? Should we? MastCell Talk 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I really fail to see the problem. The user was told several times to stop arguing and stop using talk pages inappropriately and he continued to do so. You propose we continue to let him demand criticism sections in every article he can stumble upon and cause arguments by ignoring what everyone else says if it contradicts him? I don't think that makes sense at all. --Deskana (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say I'm very much opposed to this indefinite block. I've been dealing with this user on Talk:George W. Bush, and while he/she may be a bit misguided, there is nothing here that warrants a block. Especially, without being warned that discussing changes could result in a block. I'm very tempted to remove this block as nothing this user has done amounts to disruption or harm to what we're doing here. - auburnpilot talk 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reality check: before you do that, you might want to actually look outside of your small corner and check out, oh, all of his OTHER attempts to stir up shit at Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales, Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster, Talk:Rush Limbaugh, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Talk:Communism, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Falsifiability, Talk:John Lennon, etc. Seventy total edits; 64 to talk pages, 6 to his own talk page, bupkis to articles. He ain't here for the editing. --Calton | Talk 16:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's what I get for trying to edit before I've even gotten out of bed. I'd confused the contribs of Gonezales (talk · contribs) with those of the above indef'd user. Carry on; I'm not unblocking Xavier cougat. - auburnpilot talk 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Centrx is reverting minor format fixes[edit]

Why aren't archives full protected if even edits this minor aren't allowed? See: here, here, also see: Special:Whatlinkshere/User:White_Cat/sig. I feel the user is now stalking/harassing me since he had no edits on the ANB/I archive page. -- Cat chi? 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we been through all this before? It seems like you're bringing these problems upon yourself. Just stop editing archives and your problems are solved. ChazBeckett 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
In the light of common sense. Would you mind reconsidering your position? -- Cat chi? 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Common sense would be having a sig that does not require maintenance. -- Ned Scott 04:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
My position is that you should stop editing archives and perhaps pick a signature that you'll stick with for more than a few days. That seems like common sense to me. ChazBeckett 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive250#User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat signature changes. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second, I'm just realizing what's new about this time around. This Cat isn't changing "Cool Cat" sigs... he's changing "White Cat" sigs, which he designed to point to User:White Cat/sig, but has decided to delete that page and then update every page that once linked to it. It was bad enough that this was attempted with the User:Cool Cat sigs, but hey, it was a name change. Why is it happening again? Wasn't your new sig only days old? How many times are you going to change your mind about your sig and go back and update them again and again and again. That's not how sigs are supposed to work. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I am reorganizing my sigs, I will be signing now on by year only 2 pages link to my old "/sig". You are just opposing it without even loading the diffs. Just 7 minutes after my post here might I add. -- Cat chi? 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I saw Centrx's reverts before you posted them here (zomg, watchlist). -- Ned Scott 04:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Moby Dick also said something similar... -- Cat chi? 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Short answer, telling you "don't do this, it's stupid" is not the same thing as harassment. Long answer here. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As already explained, archives are not protected because 1) it would be a large burden that is generally not necessary because few people try to change the contents of archives, and even common vandalism in archives is almost non-existent; and 2) there are legitimate edits to be made to archive pages, even outside of removing real names or potentially libellous statements, such as archiving additional sections, re-factoring, or changing headers, that would be impeded by protecting the page and likewise create additional burden if there were a scheme to have administrators protect and unprotect these pages. —Centrxtalk • 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes Mr. Cat, you should stop all this. Even better, linking directly to your page rather than doing subpage gimmicks would be a good idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What the heck? The change I made is less significant than section header corrections. The visible text is NOT affected in any way. Why is everyone being so dense!? -- Cat chi? 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If everyone but you appears dense, you should ask yourself if you're the one being dense. --Deskana (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat, stop making stupid edits and you won't have to worry about being reverted. You're not supposed to go through and modify all of your old talk page comments. It simply isn't done. They work well enough with the redirects. Your bot to do this was already denied because it's a Wikipedia policy that working redirects shouldn't be bypassed because it uses server resources at no benefit, and now you're still out there doing it anyway on your main account? Stop it and find something better to do. --Cyde Weys 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


ERMD55 (talk · contribs) claims to be an MTV casting director, which would be a WP:COI violation since all of his/her edits are to Real World articles. But they are also repeatedly edit warring to claim first, that Real World Atlanta would air in 2014, and now is going to air in 2008. Repeatedly explaining CRYSTALBALL hasn't seemed to work. Corvus cornix 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Socks puppet, simple vandalism[edit]

User‎, also registered as Pejman.azadi is playing socks puppet (Good hand edits, Bad hand edits) doing repeated deleting and removing resources and text from the intro of Persian Gulf article, and do simple vandalism by inserting disputed names for geographical place that looks like trolling.

He is registerd with his name as his IP address as he can edit the semi-protected article, and has a Welcome Message in his IP username's talk page by someone interested in his works.

He has been warned many times in his Talk Page for this behaviour. Here, I seek an oversight and considering blocking for his two account. He had contributed some comments through the same IP address before in WP, but it looks he now has another account with his IP address. Ralhazzaa 11:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Removed my notification on Zero0000's talk page that an arbitration case involving him had closed, claiming that it was "vandalism". I reinstated it, but he removed it again, leaving a rather odd message on my talk page. I don't want to get into an edit war, so perhaps someone else could take a look. David Mestel(Talk) 08:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

31 hour block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a really odd replyRyūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It's French for "blank". x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke, right?[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryanzilla13

Created by a guy who just set up an account today. Call me a bit jumpy, but this doesn't look right.Blueboy96 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He said he had a lot of IP edits. That may be why. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 15:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User Memeco checkuser confirned sockpuppet of user Jonathanmbaez[edit]

Resolved: indefblocked by User:Coelacan - Alison 17:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking the blocking of user Memeco who is a confirmed sockpuppet of indef blocked user Jonathanmbaez. Jonathanmbaez was blocked for for vandalism. He then creates another account and continues on with the same behavior. A check user was done and user ws confirmed as a sockpuppet. [7]. Consequently seeking his blocking. YoSoyGuapo 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Giano blocked[edit]

Hemlock Martinis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Giano II (talk · contribs) for 'incivility'. I have requested he explain his action here, so that it might be reviewed. Please everyone stay cool. We can do this in good order.--Docg 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I disagree with the block, I can't see anything derserving one in Giano's contribs, yes he's strong with words, but he hasn't been incivil. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any good justification for this block. We're allowed to say someone's edits are bad, if that's what we think. How else would a collaborative editing project work? Friday (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with this block and invite an explanation. Given some of the things I've seen written the last few days, the term I would use is "proportionate," and even then he's hardly the worst offender. The Arbuthnot articles are a mess. Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm giving the blocking admin 30 min to explain himself here. Let's not rush to condemn him until he does. If he's not explained by then, we unblock. Agreed?--Docg 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • While Giano's comments were perhaps a bit over the top, realistically this block isn't going to have any positive effect here (though I understand why Hemlock Martinis enacted it). Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not gone down this road before (i.e. civility blocks on Giano) and seen this be ineffective? IMO, we don't block someone for stating an opinion no matter how blunt it is.--Isotope23 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Giano's comments were unfortunate, but I think it highly unproductive for the project to block Giano. I will unblock him if someone doesn't do so first.
James F. (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Err, the proper time and place for a legitimate explanation was when the block was made, on Giano's talk page. I've no objections to an unblock sometime soon, unless more information turns up which would make it justified. Friday (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
(multiple e/c) I find no justification of any nature for this block and am inclined to reverse it summarily, but will join in allowing the blocking administrator an opportunity to be heard. Newyorkbrad 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, make it 10 min. I'm fine with an unblock though.--Docg 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to unblock five (?) minutes ago, but was thwarted by the instruction "Please discuss the block with the blocking administrator before unblocking." Giano has at times concisely expressed irritation with others' edits; he dispensed with polite circumlocutions but also in the edits I've seen did not lack civility; writing in this way on this matter is his, anybody else's right; and for good reason, as Friday says. So, Moreschi went ahead and unblocked, and good for Moreschi. -- Hoary 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the block. Referring to another as a "menace" to the project is highly inappropriate. Further, when Hemlock Martinis approached him to cool him down (see User_talk:Giano_II#Civility) Giano attacked him, with comments such as "I wish to proceed with something more useful than time-wasting and facetious debate with you". Giano has repeatedly been blocked in the past for civility concerns. While additional blocks for civility may not produce corrective results in Giano, it must be done anyways; we don't stop blocking people just because blocking them doesn't work and thus give them a free pass to be uncivil to whomever they like whenever they like. The block was clearly warranted. --Durin 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unblocked. I've seen a few silly blocks in my time here. That one took the biscuit. Moreschi Talk 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, a few min of discussion would have been nice - but would certainly have arrived at he same consensus. Endorse unblock.--Docg 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just great. Giano gets a free pass to be as uncivil as he likes. Perhaps I should make a bunch of uncivil remarks, get blocked, and keep doing it so I can keep making uncivil remarks. Afterall, blocking isn't effective. I'm sure glad we don't apply this "logic" to how we treat vandals. "Oh gosh. Blocking that vandal didn't work; they came back and vandalized. Better let them continue vandalizing!" <cough>. Unblocking was also highly premature, in the least. We only just STARTED this thread 10 minutes ago and the blocking admin hasn't even had time to explain himself. Good grief! Why even just start this thread?????? --Durin 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Cooldown blocks are expressly forbidden by our blocking policy. I consider it requisite for people to acquaint themselves with our guidelines before posting on this page. The noticeboard takes half an hour to download as it is. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Giano was not being especially uncivil, and if he was being blunt, I can understand why. Blocks are not there as punishment, nor are they there to prove a point. Sysops are not automata, and nor is Giano. We cannot expect perfection, especially under trying circumstances. Basically, he's right. Cleaning up COI/POV messes is a strain: I know, I've been there myself. Went to ArbCom over it. It's hard. Giano was not being evil, and even so, clemency is the virtue of the great. Durin, I have great respect for you, but just for once I think here you're wrong. How would this block really improve anything? Moreschi Talk 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Giano's a well-known, extremely producitive and highly-valued, slightly fragile user. The purpose of blocks is to prevent damage to the project. What purpose did this block serve in that context? Sysops are not meant to act as mindless automata, yet your comment seems to suggest that, somewhat. James F. (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    The block serves to draw a line in the sand, to say "this behavior is not acceptable". Hemlock was a messenger to that effect, and tried to calm Giano down. Instead, Giano flew off the handle. The block was appropriate. --Durin 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    You are not looking at the context. I have every sympathy for the situation Giano is in, and under such stress minor lapses can be forgiven. Nor were the comments for which he was warned for uncivil in the slightest. Blunt yes, uncivil no. His reaction may have been, but that can be forgiven. Giano is not a robot, and this Arbuthnot mess has caused everyone grief. An RfC will probably help. Irrational blocks will not. Moreschi Talk 15:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    And Hemlock Martinis is hung out to dry. Good grief. --Durin 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    An administrator is responsible for the blocks that he makes. Blocking an established contributor (or another sysop, at that) should never be done lightly. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    No, this is not the lynch mob. I have no intention of condemning Hemlock Martinis at all. Everyone should just calm down, walk away, and forget about it. One bad block is not the end of the world. We all do that, sometimes. Not a calamity. Not even worthy of making a fuss.
  • All I would say is that calling content "a mess" is commenting on the content, not the contributor, which is what you are meant to do, and the circumstances were not taken into account. Giano is basically right. Kittybrewster's articles are problematic, to say the least. We do not block people for calling a spade a spade, whether or not they're Giano. This is not a free pass, just undoing an unjustified block. Moreschi Talk 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    If you believe Hemlock blocked Giano for calling something a mess, you haven't read the discussion. --Durin 15:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to condemn the blocking admin, by the way. It's just that under strain and stress even the best of us can be forgiven for losing his rag, and Giano has been putting in a lot of worthwhile and complicated work recently. Nor, in my opinion, was he especially incivil given the circumstances and the strain of recent wikidramas. Re Durin, blocking Giano for (dubious and limited) incivility, when this has been proven not to work, just to prove the point, will not help anyone. Moreschi Talk 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Where can I pick up my free pass? --Durin 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An RfC on the whole Kittybrester fiasco might be in order.--Docg 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good idea.--Isotope23 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Moreschi Talk 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Mackensen, Blocking an established contributor (or another sysop, at that) should never be done lightly. In such circumstances, a thread should be started before the block, not after. I have no comment if the block or the unblock were rightful. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we are again. This block was clearly unjustified. Kittybrewster has indeed (perhaps unwittingly) created a mess that needs to be (and is being) dealt with. I have every faith that the wiki process will clean the "mess" up in due course, but this kind self-interested and poorly-sourced family history is indeed a "menace" to us as an encyclopedia. From Giano's talk page, it would seem that he was blocked for asking [[User:Hemlock Martinis|] to cease prolonging a "time-wasting and facetious debate". I am not sure how facetious it was, but it was certainly time-wasting. If I may caricature their exchange: "Don't be uncivil"; "I'm not being uncivil"; "Yes you are"; "No I'm not"; "I'm an admin and you are blocked. Goodnight Vienna."

An unnecessary block, now unblocked; let us all learn and move on. Remember: blocking an established editor for perceived incivility is unlikely to help. Posting on a board, such as WP:ANI and gaining some consensus for action is more likely to produce a worthwhile result. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest already, Durin. Can you not find something better to do (in the future, too)? El_C 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of us already knew so-called "cool-down" blocks[8] never cool anybody down, but always heat them up. (If you didn't, please checkout the policy: "Cool down blocks—brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user—should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation.") And we knew that the blocking admin should post controversial blocks of established editors for review on ANI, preferably before pressing the button, but at the least immediately afterwards. And we knew we're not supposed to perform a block and then go incommunicado so that people are afraid to unblock for fear of accusations of wheelwarring. And still there are blocks like this. It's depressing. I don't get to mention it was a bad block, because we've all made them? I sincerely hope we haven't. And because the famous "Free Pass" rears it ugly head if I do? Bah. Admins apparently already have a Free Pass, Durin. You don't have to pick up yours anywhere in particular. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Hurrah! It's weeks since we had any Giano drama. A welcome break from WP:BLP drama. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm missing the part about why we're going "hurrah", you must really be sick of BLP drama. FWIW, I consider this block very inappropriate. ALoan's Cliff notes outline the situation admirably. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's inappropriate, all Giano blocks are inappropriate. It's absurd! Guy (Help!) 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a free pass - long-term contributors, generally including all admins, have established a large pool of demonstrated good faith. We know they're here and working for the betterment of the encyclopedia, beyond any reasonable doubt, though that can and in a rare case has changed. Truly hostile abusive behavior (even by an admin or longtime contributor) goes beyond considerations of good faith, and sometimes requires prompt blocks anyways, but in a lot of grey area you have to wonder about it with new accounts (WP:AGF is not a suicide pact).

I cannot think of anyone, from new IP accounts up through editors, key long term editors, admins, arbcom, or Jimbo, who has not made mistakes at some point, in most cases serious mistakes. That's reality and humanity. We need to understand that it happens. That is not a free pass - that's "We all fuck up", from time to time. Georgewilliamherbert 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My explanation[edit]

After my initial comment to Giano about his comment on Kittybrewster's talk page, Giano replied that Kittybrewster was a menace to the project. This statement implies malicious intent on Kittybrewster's part when Kittybrewster has shown no desire to actively harm the project. I then asked that Giano use a less hostile tone when referring to other editors, and he replied that Kittybrewster and editors who support him were ignorant and "not capable of decorating a Christmas tree". This continued aggressiveness in communication after I made two requests to take it down a notch brought me to the conclusion that a short block of twenty-four hours was appropriate. The intention was that this block would be corrective and not punitive, and to indicate that incivility was not acceptable. --Hemlock Martinis 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that this is a good-faith block, that is not irrational, and so no shame on the blocker. Cool down blocks can work, sometimes. However, in this particular case, a block was not going to help. There are wider issues of which Giano's response was just one side in a larger dispute. Again, if I were not already busy with one arbcom case, I'd suggest that an RfC on the 'arbuthnot' issue might help. There's certainly a problems here - and it is not just Giano that sees it. Let's deal with the content issues and not focus on a few regrettable words, spoken in utter frustration. Move on everyone. --Docg 23:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Whenever there is a repugnant block we see again this empty talk about "faith" (I wonder how long ago the FAITHers actually read the WP:FAITH policy) and also talk about "moving on". Eventually we do and, sure enough, we are soon back at where we were. Could it be just because we too often "move on" instead of addressing the problems that cause such mess time and again? --Irpen 23:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's no do this. I'm giving both Giano and Hemlock the benefit of the doubt here. The other option is we all go to the barricades shouting "let's address the problems that cause this mess". However, no one agrees what it is. One side speak of "bad blocks and abusive admins" and think that's the root, the other shouts "no, it is the free pass and the incivility". Really, having that partisan shouting match will achieve nothing for anyone. Giano please tone it down, admins please don't block Giano. And let's all go sort out the Arbuthnot issues - because that is a fixable problem.--Docg 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this is out of line, but I think that perhaps an RfC or even administrative recall (at this point, perhaps on both admins) would've been highly preferable, as it would've allowed all parties to get the issues aired out. As others have noted, a block doesn't seem appropriate. --Edwin Herdman 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what? I'm the only admin involved, as far as I know. Nevertheless, I am curious as to why you're suggesting administrative recall for this. --Hemlock Martinis 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is entirely out of line, 100%, to go blocking people for something as vague as saying that a user is a menace to the project. That's first. Please read WP:NPA and read the civility policy. Neither of these give any room whatever for blocking a user for what you think might be imputing malice. It is simply not there. Secondly, the block showed that you had not investigated the matter. Blocking on the basis of tripwire language is absolutely inappropriate. You need to know what's going on in the situation, and, if you do not, then do not block. It's fine not to investigate everything, but then don't block. If you had investigated, you would have seen the thread just above, for example, largely on Kittybrewster and how he actually is a menace (in one sense) to the project as a user who knows the policies and flaunts them. The thread is under "Giano ignoring consensus," but you will notice that none of it is about Giano ignoring any consensus. Rather the reverse. Even if you did not believe that Giano's characterization was warranted, even if you felt that it was hyperbolic or insulting, that still gives no grounds for blocking. It is simply staggering to me the way that people are reaching for the block button over and over again, as if long standing users with thousands of edits are vandals. Trust me: blocking is not what being an administrator is about. I'll say it again, as it never gets old: consult, confer, discuss. Geogre 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The block was not based off of NPA. Civility was the core issue; calling someone a menace to the project serves no constructive purpose and only damages an already sensitive subject of discussion.--Hemlock Martinis 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This doesn't look too promising. The list of names provided are mostly members of the Baronetcies project as can be seen here, or other editors (Squeakbox, Waltonmonarchist) who have been pro-baronet to some extent in the past, coupled with other editors who are vaguely involved such as Mr. Darcy and Hemlock Martinis. I would suggest any such "task force" is comprised of neutral and previously uninvolved editors, and not ones handpicked by Kittybrewster. One Night In Hackney303 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What a truly ridiculous explanation. More detail on Hemlock Martinis' talk page. El_C 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't worry that idea of his will not get further than Kittybrewster's page and dreams. As for Hemlock Martinis, he is obviously in need of some admin guidance and training - some of these new admins - well I do wonder... Anyhow we have some happy news on the Arbuthnot front [9] so let us be glad that some of the pages, at least, are being improved. Hemlock can spend tomorrow reverting vandalism on her as penance. Giano 07:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Block on User:Rickyrab[edit]

Just blocked User:Rickyrab ([10]) and an IP ([11]) he's known to use for repeated trolling requests for the histories of BJAODN. (See [12] [13] [14] and [15]) ^demon[omg plz] 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Near 3RR
Trolling on DRV
  • [18]
  • [19] - Also says he's not willing to accept the closure of the DRV, and plans to reopen it.
  • [20] - Which he did
Using a known anon in a debate he already commented in
Ignoring my Declined Request, promises to go elsewhere

Hope this clears up a bit more, in case there's any questions. ^demon[omg plz] 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He was certainly advised and warned. 48 hours seems fair enough. Rklawton 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems fair to me. Endorse block. --Coredesat 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for trolling. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility of Jeffery O. Gustafson[edit]

I'd hate to do this, but... Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) has been less than civil lately, especially regarding the BJAODN issue.

I left him a message on his talk page, saying that to me, his civility has been lacking. He responds with saying that was incorrect observation. I post an example of what I mean, and he reverts my edit without reason or comment. [23]

Sincerly Whsitchy 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, off with his head! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Awww, I was using that... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Err... I mean, do you have any more examples? We don't really care about such a minor event if thats all there is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Jeff has the same rights as every other Wikipedia editor to remove additions to his talkpage at will. I personally think it is a bad practice, but he is free to do so... and I don't find that diff horribly incivil...--Isotope23 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Look at his comment above that, where he's asked to reinstate the BJAODN pages (here), and the comment at here (in the middle). I'm sure there's others. Whsitchy 17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Found another talk revert [24]. It appears to me he's removing comments he doesn't agree with to save face. Whsitchy 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps you could assume good faith of his reverts? Perhaps he's entirely sick of being harassed over deleting a wretchedly unfunny copyvio? Sounds eminently plausible. Moreschi Talk 17:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Bingo. Plenty of stuff in my archives from folks taking issue with me over one thing or another. But trolling, personal attacks, and nonsense gets reverted on sight. The first revert noted above was trolling (I already know what I said, repeating it serves no purpose than to troll), and the second one was trolling on behalf of a blocked user using arguments that make no sense. Indeed, I say right on the top of my talk page (more or less since 2005) that "I quickly archive items nowadays, and reserve the right to revert and refactor at will." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think he tends to roll things back too much. But, what are you proposing should be done about it? I don't see how this is an administrative issue. Friday (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, using rollback on your own talk page is probably not the end of the world either. Moreschi Talk 17:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
To Friday: Public warning maybe, I dunno, just something to get him to calm down. I didn't know where to post this, and I thought this was the best place since he was an admin himself. To Moreschi: I'm not saying the revertings are the problem though. Whsitchy 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Jeffy O. Gustafson's archiving practices are a bit exentric. I think this part of the userpage policy can cover this though - "The removal of a messages is taken as evidence that the message has been read by the user." WjBscribe 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying the problem is his civility, not the reverts of his pages. Whsitchy 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the diffs, Rickyrab was blocked for trolling requests along these lines and I can't say that Jeff's response is all that out there given the "unique understanding" of the GFDL Ricky is displaying. The other stuff isn't all that incivil really. If you want Jeff to calm down, it's probably time for editors to stop asking him to restore content that he clearly is not going to restore.--Isotope23 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, BJAODN is gone, it's pretty much unlamented, and I shouldn't think any admin will restore it. No point, none whasoever, in pestering people over the thing. Ye shall reap what ye have sown, etc. Moreschi Talk 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. It is clearly not unlamented; otherwise there would not be controversy over the deletion of most of the BJAODN. As for editors asking him to restore content that he does not want to, yeah, there's no point in doing so any further (especially when there are admins out there that are interested in restoring the BJAODN in a GFDL friendly manner, such as the Cunctator, see below for the conversations involving what was almost a wheel war about BJAODN). Furthermore, BJAODN is not completely gone. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't rule out stress for the comments, and I fully understand that part. Just that it sort of bothered me, that's all Whsitchy 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Complaints against Gustafson crop up pretty frequently (I discovered this after making one myself). I'm curious as to how someone like this ever became an administrator. Perhaps a request to stand for reconfirmation is in order? Simões (talk/contribs) 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Temporary unpopularity because some copyvio gets deleted does not a bad admin make. If you really think something is broken, the kind, loving gentlemen of the Arbitration Committe are that way. Moreschi Talk 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hahahahaha, reconfirmation! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Heh, annoying red link or not, Jeffrey's a great admin. This is bordering on trolling now. -Mask? 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me set some facts straight. I am not doing this as "revenge" against Jeffery for deleting the sub-pages. I can see where he was coming from when he did that. However, I just thought some of his comment towards users weren't really civil. That's all. Whsitchy 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, a slap on Jeffrey's wrist is in order.
There. Can we all go on about our business, please? Thank you! Phaedriel - 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, time to move on here.--Isotope23 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The comments may have been blunt but they certainly weren't uncivil. Now put your Spiderman pyjamas away. Nick 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we still increase the distance between his ears and shoulders? :p ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I find this totally amazing that an admin is let off for being uncivil particularly when he has a history of it. Even worse still, he was involved in a whole whole debate here regarding a very minor breach of WP:CIV where one admin clearly chose to overreact and despite clear community consensus against his actions (ignoring pile-on votes), refused not walk back his decision, and clearly does not wish to respond to any comments or have anyone see or hear further discussion on this matter diff. Jeffery O. Gustafson should know full well the policies and as such his actions should not go unpunished by the community, particularly since he is an admin and should be held to an even higher standard than the regular tireless contributors. This is a further demonstration in the disparate application of WP policies against certain groups of users, and quite frankly does nothing other than to weaken WP policy in these matters. I have removed the resolved tag from this AN/I report and I am asking for immediate review of this decision particularly in light of these additional facts, and a subsequent enforcable undertaking or punishment be issued to Jeffery O. Gustafson. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The demands in here for the above user to apologise to Jeffery for one single comment now ring rather hollow in my estimation given the above proceedings. I am concerned about the clear lack of balance which seems to have emerged, as was pointed out at the time by User:DanielT5, but emphasised beyond doubt in this case. Orderinchaos 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jeffery is now removing Talk page edits which dare to point to where one can find the BJAODN content. Corvus cornix 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yawn... WP:EL: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Nick. We must lynch him. It is the only way the community will be satisfied. -Pilotguy hold short 13:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kaikolar_are_Thevadiyaal, User:Willow_Walker, User:Baccarat on article Mudaliar and Talk:Mudaliar[edit]

The following user IDs are making statements of extreme vulgarity. They maybe sockpuppets of the same user User:Kaikolar_are_Thevadiyaal, User:Willow_Walker, User:Baccarat. They are involved in highly uncivilized language and deleting the RFC I posted in the talk page. Please take appropriate action against these logins.

Please restore my RFC request on the talk page.

Sriramwins 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is interesting. I haven't taken a close look at the situation but it is definitely at risk for the arrival of sockpuppets of User:Mudaliar and User:Venki123, both blocked per the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123. Somebody take a look and see if we'll need some ArbCom enforcement/checkuser. The Behnam 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Night Gyr[edit]

Please see this diff. Admin Night Gyr has announced that s/he will be providing the press with material that was deleted as a BLP violation. Corvus cornix 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment was misinterpreted. 'her' refers to the subject of the article, not the author. This was in line with what happened in the Sean Hornbeck case and was endorsed by several other editors and administrators, including Newyorkbrad: "I endorse this approach and was actually planning to ask whether it would make sense for an OTRS volunteer to reach out to the Hornbeck Foundation and solicit their views on this matter (including the views of Shawn Hornbeck himself, specifically) as part of our overall effort to build sensitivity to the needs and rights of crime victims to our approach to this type of article. I would have no objection to temporary reinstatement of the article for a day or two so they can look it it, if that is requested. Night Gyr, I would also appreciate your drawing the attention of whomever you are in touch with to the reasons that I gave for the deletion. I think that in fairness they should know that the basis for my concern was the privacy interest of victims, especially minors, even if a given person victim might be prepared to consider waiving such privacy interest in this particular case." (quote from newyorkbrad) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I read the comment the way Night Gyr clarified above. A query, is it a BLP violation to send a copy of the article to the subject of the article? Clarification as to the community's opinion on that might assist in resolving this before it hits crisis mode. - CHAIRBOY () 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I read it the other way, but either way, I don't know. Surely the subject has certain rights? Moreschi Talk 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr has been desysopped. Corvus cornix 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[25] - I asked the stewards about this, and Guillom did an emergency desysopping while the arbcom decides this. He says: "[guillom] DavidGerard_, just tell them this was an emergency procedure, because the arbcom wasn't reachable ; now they have to take care of that and if the emergency was not justified, then a bureaucrat will sysop him without delay" - David Gerard 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts)

Ok this is ridiculous. I am not planning to and I never intended to say that I would release content to the press. I'm simply using the reporter as a contact to see if he can put me in touch with the article's subject, since he wrote the front page article about it. This is a practice that I have done before with wide endorsement. See the remarks in the Sean Hornbeck case. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone read your grammar wrong. Moreschi Talk 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It was quite clear to me and, presumably, a bunch of other folks who didn't de-sysop him , so 'everyone' is a bit of an overstatement. :) Don't panic, folks. - CHAIRBOY () 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Is an arbcom case open and if so where? If not, who's bringing it? This all seems to have happened rather hastily... -- ChrisO 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The numerous "her"s are certainly not a smoking gun, and given that Night Gyr has now clarified the matter, I hope a bureaucrat will resysop him promptly. CMummert · talk 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, I believe you may owe Night Gyr a bit of an apology. Considering the seriousness of the accusation, a critical read of the text is warranted, and it's quite clear that he was speaking of sending a copy not to the press, but to the subject of the article. A rap of the knuckles on other folks involved might be appropriate too, c'mon guys. - CHAIRBOY () 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I may well owe Night Gyr one. I'm still running around trying to find a current arbitrator online - David Gerard 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you consider leaving a note on an ArbCom member's talk page and not taking action until then? It's awful when people aren't on IRC, I guess. A block would normally work a bit better than a demotion, unless the person then unblocked himself, and then you might have cause. Sheesh. How many "instant super fast" actions do we ever really need? Geogre 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The writer was the subject of the first clause, so it's entirely natural to assume that it's the subject of the second clause. Hence the confusion. Moreschi Talk 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
and I was pretty sure the writer was a dude, so her was unambiguous to me. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Not to me, I'm afraid :) Moreschi Talk 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Given that his name is "Eli", I feel that his "dudeness" was a reasonable assumption, although I suppose it could be short for "Elizabeth"? JavaTenor 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't the first to tell Night Gyr that his/her suggestion was inappropriate. I did think, though, that it needed wider circulation, which was why I brought it here. I apologize to Night Gyr if he/she did not intend what a read of the comments would have led a reasonable person to assume that he/she meant. but I still think that this should have been addressed here. And *I* wasn't the person who did the desysopping, I don't have that ability. Corvus cornix 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to be fair, my wording could have been clearer before I went back and edited it. My attempt to contact her was sparked directly by this comment on my talk page. I just figured I'd send her the text directly instead of such a biased opinion on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's okay to send deleted content to other people, as long as we don't send it to the press? Sorry this won't wash. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I was going on the Sean Hornbeck precedent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Tony, to be clear, he was talking about sending the text of the article to the person the article was about. Does your objection stand? If so, this may be a grey area of BLP that should be hashed out. - CHAIRBOY () 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about this Sean Hornbeck precedent, and I'm not amused by the suggestion that our deleted material can be leaked. It cannot. Has Night Gyr has sent deleted material to the subjects of articles in the past? Is that why he claims a "precedent", because he got away with it? --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the statement quoted from Newyorkbrad at the beginning of this section? or the Sean Hornbeck DRV? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, just to be clear : Night Gyr's statement was ambiguous enough to require an emergency procedure (that was asked by people from your wiki). I knew there was a possibility of misspelling, but there was also a possibility of disclosure. I desysopped him to let the time for the ArbCom to look into this case or for him to explain himself. If he was really about to disclose deleted bio content, risks were high and action was necessary. If it was only a misunderstanding, losing his admin tools during a few hours was no big deal, and any bureaucrat would give him his tools back without any problem. Cheers, guillom 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Didn't seem ambiguous to me, he specified the person he was sending it to by name. Poor, hasty judgment from folks on this wiki may have contributed to the confusion. - CHAIRBOY () 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not originally, I edited it after I got a message on my talk page about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the original diff actually is clear-cut (the wrong way) if you don't know about the gender of the writer. Moreschi Talk 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
or that I was writing it in response to FCYTravis's request to email the subject of the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the ambiguity: [26]. The steward action seems wise given the implications. If Night Gyr just expressed himself poorly he can of course be resysopped but guillom seems to have acted correctly. WjBscribe 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Concur; the desysopping was entirely appropriate as a preventative measure. The log notes it was an "emergency" desysopping. There was a serious concern that a sysop might be intending to release BLP deleted material. I suggest we drop criticism of the desysopping and focus on the issue at hand. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am baffled as to why we would consider that it's OK to say that a bunch of guys who type with one hand drooled over this girl even if she did "approve" it in some way. And anyway, OTRS is the channel for that kind of thing. Tis was an incredibly bad idea, whatever the motivation. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If the concern was that she wouldn't want it on the internet... Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well either way, do we send the article to this lady? Is that, as it were, the proper course of action? Seems to me we might want to sort that out. Moreschi Talk 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken leave of your senses? No we do not. And we do not contact her at all unless and until she contacts us. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
tell that to FCYTravis. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that FCYTravis was employing a rhetorical device to get you to come to your senses, not actually advocating that you actually contact the victim here. But I suspect that if you are ethical in the way most of us are, thinking about what you would say to the victim would indeed have brought you to your senses. I hope so anyway. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Would you mind having a brief biography of you listing your records and explaining what happened in wikipedia?" or "What do you think of this article text that we're thinking about using?" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Oh and by the way, we can't promise it will stay as that version, and anyone can come along and change it at anytime" --pgk 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just become aware of this situation including the fact that comments I made earlier in the week in another DRV are being referred to. What happened in that case was that I deleted two articles that referred to abductions of and sexual assaults upon two minors, out of respect for the privacy interests of the minors and their families. In one of these cases the deletion has raised relatively few eyebrows, but in the other (Shawn Hornbeck) it has been pointed out that the Hornbeck family has affirmatively sought publicity as advocates for missing children and established a website and a charitable foundation for this purpose, which led some of the commenters on the DRV to question whether my concerns were misplaced in this particular case. The DRV is still ongoing and I would welcome additional comments there (see, Wikipedia:Deletion review#Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby).

During the course of that DRV, Night Gyr indicated that if a major ethical question about our article on Shawn Hornbeck was whether the Hornbeck family would consider that it invaded their privacy rights, a reasonable step would be to contact the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation for their input. This could obviously not be the course pursued in every BLP-related deletion but under these circumstances it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. In any event, Night Gyr's statement that he had done this and my comment that I endorsed this step in this particular instance was not commented on, adversely or otherwise, by any of the dozen or more other editors, including relatively senior admins, who have participated since that time in the DRV.

Frankly, the factors present in the Shawn Hornbeck case are not equally applicable to the present situation. Extrapolating from that situation to this one was unwarranted and I would not have and certainly do not endorsed Night Gyr's proposed initiative in the case of Alison Stokke, in part because there is no evidence that this subject or her family have affirmatively sought any form of publicity and in part because the policy arguments for retaining her article are much less strong. As a general matter, we all know that we must be careful about reinstating or deleting any deleted material, even though in this case it is apparently that little harm would actually have been caused by relevation of the material (although more harm might have been caused by unsolicited contact by a perceived Wikipedia representative in general, no matter what the person had to say, given the history of the past couple of weeks). In the limited cases where outreach to an article subject is warranted, this should be undertaken only by an approved OTRS volunteer and after appropriate senior-level consultation.

The fact is, however, that if Night Gyr had actually undeleted and restored the entire Allison Stokke article, this action would have been criticized and he would probably have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff or a similar arbitration case, but I doubt there would have been an emergency desysopping. If reinstating the article for the entire world to read would not have warranted emergency desysopping, then it is difficult to see that suggesting an intent to disclose the content to a single individual should do so, particular where the content, although highly troublesome under BLP, does not pose an imminent danger and consists of material that was on the front page of the Washington Post last week.

I would suggest that Night Gyr's sysop bit be restored on condition that he clearly and definitively drop any plans to disclose any deleted material to anyone or to contact the subject of any article or any member of the press. Further measures, if any, can then be considered by ArbCom if anyone desires to bring a case. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that makes sense. You argue that Night Gyr shouldn't have been desysopped even if he'd threatened to leak to the press (which I disagree with) but then impose conditions before his sysop bit is restored. Surely if you think he did nothing that warranted losing them, he should just get the tools back... WjBscribe 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The point of my post is not to finally evaluate the merits of this matter; that's ArbCom's or the community's job. I think that Night Gyr used very poor judgment in this instance. However, my purpose here was to suggest an interim solution that everyone could hopefully live with. Obviously if Night Gyr states that he will not do any of the actions that he was desysopped for fear he would do, and assuming that no one disbelieves him, my hope is that the circumstances that led to an emergency desysopping would be alleviated. (It is ironic that Night Gyr is on the other side from me in pretty much every one of these BLP debates, yet I find myself here to an extent defending him. That seems to happen to me a lot lately.) Newyorkbrad 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I agree with you that a few of them should be deleted/redirected/stubbed, just want to see a little more civility and respect (for process too) around here. Anyway, I thought [27] was pretty unambigious that I wasn't going to do what I got desyssopped for seeming like I was going to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would note in passing that there is a huge difference between contacting the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation - a charitable body - and attempting to contact an individual who has been the subject of some pretty unsavoury attention on the Internet. I would hope that this would not actually need pointing out, but apparently it does. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • In neither case I did I contact the subject directly, just someone who could place me in contact with them to ask if they would forward a message or place the subject back in contact with me at their discretion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Guy is obviously right and I believe I said this above (using more words). Newyorkbrad 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That's why I tried contact the news outlet that interviewed her. Obviously she's talked to someone about her fame, and I'm not trying to stalk her down at home. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, if you're suggesting that Night Gyr undertake, as all administrators have, not to disclose the contents of deleted pages, then resysopping may be merited provided he agrees to it. As suggested any decision on desysopping could be taken on due consideration by the arbitration committee, in the light of this and other problematic incidents involving that admin. --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I'd like to note that Everyking's desysoping came after offering to reveal personal information, not article content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyking's left me a note to say I may have misstated things here. Just going by my reading of the signpost article, so don't take my word on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a problem here. NightGyr's choice of words gave the impression that he might do something undesirable, but probably not so undesirable as to warrant emergency desysopping. He has no intention to do so. The probably-unnecessary emergency desysopping should be reversed forthwith, and Ma'at shall look indly upon the world. The Land 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious over-reaction. Night Gyr should be re-sysopped at once. This is the first I've heard about any undertaking to not disclose the content of deleted pages. Things get undeleted all the time. In this case, the blp problem seems to have been the existence of the page, not its content. Tom Harrison Talk 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, it was absolutely an overreaction. Almost Bostonian in scope. - CHAIRBOY () 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thirded; I'd even go for Chicken Little in nature. Ninety-nine percent of people willing to release confidential information to the press would either (a) not say that in public or (b) make a copy of said confidential information before saying that in public. -- tariqabjotu 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Fourthed. I've seen a number of admins in the past state that they would provide the content of deleted pages upon request. If there has been a recent uproar, and people keep mentioning some ongoing arbcom case, it might be worth noting that not all admins spend their days following the latest development in wikipolitics, and may have no idea about the latest panic. The sheer length of this discussion is evidence that there was ambiguity. Admins are required to follow policy, not be immune to bouts of stupidity. If people are saying that the idea is stupid, but can't make an uncontroversial argument about why his idea is clearly against policy, there is no cause for an emergency desysopping. The fact that resysopping is taking so long is ridiculous. - BanyanTree 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was an overreaction. We don't leak info that's deleted due to BLP to the press. But given Night Gyr has clarified that this was not his intention, I propose he be resysopped without further condition. WjBscribe 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Offering to copy controversial deleted content off-site is a poor decision regardless of whether Night Gyr meant to send it to the journalist or to the article subject. Undeletion, in fact, is less of a bad decision, since it can be reversed; copying it outside Wikipedia can't be.
I also wonder at Night Gyr's reasoning for wanting to contact the article subject, who's already bothered by all the unwelcome attention, purely to send her the content of a deleted Wikipedia article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
that, as linked earlier in the post, is why I sought her opinion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A note, he didn't threaten to leak it to the press, and the corrected confusing wording had been fixed well before the hammer dropped. It's an important distinction, and compromises one of the many missing inanimate carbon rods that are supposed to keep this type of meltdown from happening. - CHAIRBOY () 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I corraled Fred Bauder and Morven, who are looking into the thing right this moment - David Gerard 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still getting a handle on this, but let's be absolutely clear about something: it would be completely and utterly improper to disclose potentially libelous/slanderous/bad revisions to the media (or anyone, really), and on reading that diff that sounds like what Night Gyr was offering to do. Text can be deleted and undeleted on-wiki, but once emailed it's gone, out of our hands and control. Imagine if we'd caught the Siegenthaler problem in time, but somebody decided to email him the article regardless. This may have been an overreaction but I cannot fault the people responsible. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the article was inaccurate, though. It wasn't libelous like Siegenthaler, the concern was whether the subject would be harmed by existence of an article that didn't violate anything else. So I decided to ask, as I was prompted to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But your follow up indicates that you have not seen why this was such a dumb idea. Which it was. I mean, I have done some abysmally stupid things and got away wiht them, there but for the grace of God and all, but really - really - the mere idea of takign this to either the press or - infinitely worse - the subject was so wrong that there is no sane response but to slap yourself on the forehead and say "duh!". Guy (Help!)
  • no one had ever said anything but positive things to me about talking to the subject... Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • JZG, I've asked for clarification on the subject of sending the BLP deleted data to the subject on WT:BLP, your insight would be appreciated. I'm not sure it's as obviously abysmally dumb as you've asserted, it seems like an area of BLP that has yet to be defined. - CHAIRBOY () 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not at all obvious to me why people are referring to this as an "overreeaction", when, in the best possible reading of events, an en: administrator intended to use their ability to read deleted content to track down the subject of unwanted internet attention in order to email them an article about their personal life and the harassing incident. Should I take the "chicken little" comments above to mean that en: administrators think that this is responsible use of adminship privileges? I'd much rather have one less en: admin than a news story about how Wikipedia's deleted content was emailed to the latest internet meme victim by one of Wikipedia's "trusted users". If we are going to say that this is okay, further thoughts here. Jkelly 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
yeah, you are misreading it. All I did was click this link on this article and type in a message asking if he'd let her know that there was a discussion on whether wikipedia should have an article about her and her opinion was being sought. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This desysopping was way out of line. I've had it with BLP fascism. There is no evidence that the information in the article was not verifiable and well-sourced, and it is absolutely clear that the article was deleted out of process. So much for Wikipedia is not censored. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE MORAL JUDGMENTS. WE'RE A GODDAMN ENCYCLOPEDIA, WE REPORT RELIABLE SOURCES, WE DON'T PASS JUDGMENT ON THEM. *** Crotalus *** 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Fascism as a type of government involved a merger of the public and private spheres, an assertion of economic autarky, a promotion of mass nationalism, and the rejection of the transcendental and the Enlightenment. What this has to do with BLP I can't fathom. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I was of course using the term in the metaphorical sense, to express my level of disgust at this witch hunt. (Oops, there's another metaphor.) *** Crotalus *** 22:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I know what you meant; I found it to be in appalling taste, and I doubt very much I'm the only one. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Godwin's Law, game over, you lose. Corvus cornix 23:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Admins shouldn't be misusing their tools to undelete articles in the interests of outside bodies. Articles should be deleted and undeleted in the interests of Wikipedia only. Exceptions are where someone has written an umambiguously harmless thing that was deleted because it wasn't policy-compliant and he doesn't have a copy; then okay, maybe e-mail it to him. But if in even the slightest doubt, or if there's any controversy, then definitely not. SlimVirgin (talk)
In this case, it was supposed to be in the interest of wikipedia to settle once and for all whether the outside party would object, given that many arguments were based on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You were going to send it to a newspaper! We have a communications committee to decide that kind of thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
...No I wasn't. I've clarified this many times. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my view admins contacting article subjects independently is a bad idea. If article subjects come here and involve themselves that is all well and good, and we can then communicate with them, but approaching private citizens who have not involved themselves is intrusive. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno but if I were a reptilegentleman from the press I think my first reaction to this would be a folow up article on how wikipedia has decided to start asking subjects of articles what they think about them. Que 5,00 word op ed on whats wrong with wikipedia. For this reason, if no other, I do think that this wasn't the brightest idea we have had for a while. The last think we need is more wikidrama - especially with all the BLP stuff going on right now. Spartaz Humbug! 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as a press handler, I shudder at the thought. But I don't think PR hypotheticals should be a consideration here - David Gerard 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping[edit]

I think the more important point about this discussion is not the rights and wrongs of NightGyr's intentions, but the emergency desysopping. As I understand it there are three levels of speed to an involuntarily desysopping

  • The normal speed: Arbcom opens case, makes judgement, steward desysops
  • The emergency speed: Arbcom hastily corresponds on irc/email and authorises desysopping pending review
  • The 'imminent threat to the project' speed - someone convinces the first available steward that there is a really really good reason to desysop someone.

I am unclear whether anyone from ArbCom at all was involved in the decision to desysop NightGyr, so whether it's in the second or third category. In either case I do not see anything in his comments requiring desysopping right this instant. I think the speed of the desysopping, and the lack of clarity about procedure, is what makes this incident particularly concerning. The Land 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The fact that you don't see anything requiring an immediate de-sysopping doesn't exclude the fact that others did. Read the comments above. The specter of an administrator emailing content not meant for publication to third parties clearly bothers a lot of people, and it sounded as though he was about to act. A series of misunderstandings perhaps, but at the end of the day he gets his bit back and no harm done. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I can see why Corvus got very worried when seeing the comments. I don't see why it requires the same level of action as if NightGyr's account had been compromised by Willy on Wheels. Particularly as NightGyr was promptly explaining his actions. We should not be spooked by a 'specter'. The Land 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Were the account compromised he would have been blocked indefinitely, which did not occur. Further, your comment fails to account for the fact that what he actually proposed, per his own clarification, was also quite inappropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Nonsense. If admins act inappropriately then you talk to them, raise the matter here or with Arbcom. You don't immediately get someone to desysop them. The Land 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If I'd been able to find an arbitrator it would have been second; as it was I thought doing something quickly was in order, so I went to the stewards and went "WHAT ON EARTH". I'm not an arbitrator, but I'm an ex-arbitrator and a noisy bugger and so forth. So the steward who acted said "emergency desysop, resysop quickly if the arbs say so" and I immediately continued in search for them. The AC is discussing this actively and Fred has spoken on Night Gyr's talk page - David Gerard 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Were he about to act, he would've already had the deleted article on his hard drive anyway, and desysopping would've made no difference. As it stands, however, it appears his intentions were good even if possibly misguided. This makes no sense. I'm as much in favor of BLP as anyone, but it's being seriously overreached recently. It's a good policy, but WP:ENC is worth remembering too. There will come times when it's encyclopedic to cover bad things that happen to a good person, and while I don't think this particular case is one of them (15 minutes of fame stories belong on Wikinews), we need to be prepared for that case when it does happen, and not shy away from it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Has NightGyr been resysopped yet, now that it's been clarified, or is arbcom still reviewing? Georgewilliamherbert 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no buttons. I answered Fred Bauder a while ago back on his talk page, not sure what's left to say. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... why do people call them buttons??? Maybe I'm using the bootleg version of Wikipedia, but they look like tabs to me. -- tariqabjotu 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sysops can access deleted pages for administrative/janitorial purposes. Nothing else. Transcribing and sending deleted pages is not what that access was meant for and it's an abuse of position. If an article was deleted, it should remain hidden. (Remember copyvios? wikipedia keeps them and is on the safe side since it isn't disclosing them to public, admins are expected not to make public deleted stuff) -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A number of admins openly advertise "I will hand you a copy of the contents of a deleted article" for review purposes or to see if a salvagable new version could be done using some of the old content. Presumably admins are expected to not abuse BLP deletions in that manner, and can't overcome oversight in that manner, but I think you're overstating the expected secrecy level for deleted pages... Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this whole thing was rather abusive -- the "emergency" demotion -- and shows some serious flaws in the way things are going around here. Did anyone decide to talk to the supposed dangerman? Seeing how easily this was cleared up here, why was it not cleared up first? Did anyone consider a block? If the admin were set on causing massive legal damage, then he would unblock himself, and then there might be grounds for a demotion. Finally, what makes anyone think that they were catching a rogue admin bent on world domination? If one of us really were about to go bonkers and betray the Foundation, then that one would simply do it, and not suggest that he was thinking about doing it.
This business is horrendous. How was it even possible? How was such a quick, unreasoned demotion possible? The demented decision making at the speed of light suggests that reasoning and acting were being done by some medium other than Wikipedia.
I am not blaming anyone for wanting to stop a BLP violation. I am not blaming anyone for misreading the post. I am not blaming anyone for thinking that we had a fire that needed stamping out. On the other hand a demotion and without so much as a "did you mean it?" And this happens in how much time? Bad, bad, bad. Geogre 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not over-react to the over-reaction. Not everything is evidence of IRC conspiracy. David Gerard made a judgment call. There was some miscommunication, and the situation finally turned out to be less urgent than feared. It sounds like Night Gyr will be re-sysopped shortly with no prejudice. There is little damage to him or the project in his not having buttons/tabs for a few hours. If we want to discuss the procedure for emergency de-sysopping, it might be better to do that tomorrow and elsewhere. Tom Harrison Talk 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's no different in character to a block. It's done to prevent a perceived problem. And then we can talk about it (as we are). No big deal, although I'm glad it's not me. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration to user sandbox space?[edit]

So as a point of clarification, does this mean that restoring deleted articles to user sandbox space is also inappropriate? I have seen admins that accomodate this quite often. It now appears that this is not acceptable. --Tbeatty 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on why it was deleted. It has never been acceptable to give away material that was deleted because of potential libel issues, or other BLP concerns. Admins need to use good judgement and the consequence of bad judgement is desysopping. In this particular case the deleted content does not appear particularly sensitive, but getting into an argument at DRV and saying, "I'm going to send the deleted article to the Washington Post" (which is what he seemed to be saying) is bound to trigger a red alert, at least until the situation can be clarified. Thatcher131 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith[edit]

So I've read through all of this, and maybe I missed it, but if an admin says their going to do something that is not a good idea, isn't the best response to assume good faith and assume that the admin is operating with the best of intentions? Would it be difficult to leave the admin a message on their talk page or e-mail them saying "I don't think this is a good idea, here's why..." or "Did you know that this is against XXX policy?..." If that had happened in this case, the matter might have resolved itself very quickly with a reply that de-obfuscated the pronouns. If we can't assume the good faith of our fellow admins, Wikipedia will become a very unpleasant place to hang out! -- SamuelWantman 08:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless the admin in question has already shown a tendency to disregard gently worded suggestions not to do things, of course. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content is rarely secret content[edit]

Just because something got deleted doesn't mean it's necessarily secret. In this case the Wikipedia article contained nothing not already very widely published both in online and offline sources. Anyone can cobble together an article like that in five minutes. There wouldn't have been any "leak". Haukur 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an easy and obvious act to copy a page, along with its history and the associated discussion to one's own hard drive when it looks like an interesting or useful article might be deleted. Not rocket science, does not require any admin powers. Beside any Google cache or Answers,com mirror, anyone could in fact copy any articles up for deletion to an alternate site they created for the purpose, "Deletopedia" or some such, under the GFDL license and keep it there forever, if they had the bandwidth and server space. This action made way too much of "special admin powers" and was closing the barn door after the horse departed. Edison 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
More like burning down the barn with the horses still inside. (if we're gonna go wrong with our metaphors let's go really wrong)Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the exact text in question was still publicly available on the Internet when Night Gyr was ostensibly "emergency" desysopped so he couldn't get his hands on it. It still is publicly available on the Internet. If Night Gyr had really set his mind on sending the text to person A or B the desysopping wouldn't even have slowed him down. It makes a mockery of the essential process of emergency-desysopping. Haukur 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a status update on the arbcom proceedings or anything? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any? Fred Bauder accepted your explanation and is fine with resysopping you. Morven was fine with it too, he just asked for a confirmation that you wouldn't do "this or similar in future". It's a bit unclear what 'this' means in the context (i.e. where Morven thought you were going to hypothetically send the content of the article, the subject of the confusion) but I'd advice you to just go over to WP:BN say that you've learned whatever lessons there were to be learned and ask for your bit back, citing the arbs' posts. Haukur 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Resolved ResolvedMOS issues explained and ignored; blocked for 60 hours by Tariqabjotu for multiple 3RR. --YFB ¿ 02:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevewk seems to want to put in hard spaces into the following article ... could someone look at the situation ...

Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Edward Gibbon

... thanks ... J. D. Redding 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Point him in the direction of the manual of style? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by SanchiTachi[edit]

Recently, SanchiTachi was indefinitely blocked following a discussion on this board, and some related edit warring on a variety of pages. A few days afterwards, another post was made here, detailing "disruptive" edits to a number of the same pages. I noticed, as did several other users, that these edits were similar in nature, and tone, to those made by the blocked user. As a result, I filed a check user case, which was then added to by another vigilant editor. As a result, it has been confirmed that SanchiTachi has been block evading, and using sock-puppets in this content dispute.

However, that's not really my question. So far, none of the IP addresses involved have been banned - but, I can't find a sock-puppet template to put on their userpages that says as much; all of the current ones say "this user has been banned". I'm not sure what to do at this point. --Haemo 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Write, and document, a new one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I could try writing a new template - it will be my first shot at it. --Haemo 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No, this doesn't seem to be an easy fix; all of the current sockpuppet templates inherit from one which doesn't really work how you suggest - and it's editprotected. It's not worth the hassle. --Haemo 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Is {{IPsock}} helpful? -- Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Sanchi's sock-puppets have been blocked now. --GentlemanGhost 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z for the xth time[edit]

As most of you might know User:Gon4z has an incredible history of vandalism, insulting other users, 3rr edit wars, lies, unsourced edits,… some of the former bans he got can be seen: here, here, here, here and here Now he is back and at it again: misquoting his own sources, putting in POVs and calling me racist... Anyway: I continually keep an eye on his edits to spot his sometimes outrageous edits like: "a Orthodox crusade on the Muslims of Kosova" is his reason for an increased interest in Islam in Albania today.
Users User:Sthenel, User:Bluewings, User:PANONIAN, User:Denizz and User:Reinoutr had problems with him this week, but nothing on the scale of what User:MrMacMan or I experienced. I kept an eye on his edits and they were all unsourced, POV, disruptive, erroneous and/or plain lies. Some examples from just yesterday:

  • [28] He left the changed sentence unfinished and has no sources for his edit.
  • [29] The source he gives has no information about the topic he writes about and every other editor disagrees with his edits- but he states that other editors additions are “vadalism”.
  • [30] He deleted 10 lines without sources-just stating that the other user’s additions are “vandalism”.
  • [31] He changed the number of Albanians killed from 10.000 to “tens of thousands” BUT that was after he inserted the number 10.000, which was after he had deleted the number of civilian deaths and before that the number of dead Albanians in the article was given as 4300.
  • [32] He removed a very well sourced data (4 sources!) with some of his unsourced numbers and inserted the following: “The war (in Kosovo) had a big influence in the growth of Islam as the world saw that as a Orthodox crusade on the Muslims of Kosova where the Serbian Orthodox people tried to expel all Albanians from Kosova, over 550,000 were forced out of Kosova and 20,000 were murdered, also the backing of the KLA by most Muslim countries and the 3,000 Mujahideen’s who volunteered to fight in Kosova helped widen Islam to the Albanian people.” The reason he gives for his edits is “Reverted vandalism”.
  • [33] With his edit the the number of Albanians in Turkey suddenly jumped from 50,000 to 5,000,000 people. This time his reason to inflate is a bit more colourful: “This stupid vandalism has to stop, I ahve sourced all of my edits…” but no source is given at all by him.
  • Furthermore he has returned to reedit his “Albania is ready for war with Greece or Yugoslavia” stance into the article Military of Albania

In my opinion Gon4z’s only purpose is to disrupt the hard and good work of Wikipedia editors and to push a nationalistic Pro-Albanian stance. I haven’t seen one useful edit by him! I.e. the edits he made in the last days to Greek diaspora, Islam in Serbia, Montenegrins, Greeks, List of countries by the number of billionaires, Muslims by nationality, Religion in Albania and Islam in Austria were all reverted by other editors.

  • This morning he continued and made edits to Turkish Armed Forces and Turkish Army doubling the military expenditures and giving as source the official site of the ALBANIAN Military: a site that doesn't even mention Turkey! and in good tradition he has once more reverted every other article saved by other users to his version and calling all other edits "vandalism".

Here is a comment he made on April 20th that explains his insistence to insert his "Orthodox people are on a Crusade against Muslims" stance. He is also deleting paragraphs he doesn't like from talk pages! and now a bit more of his insulting stuff [34], [35], [36], [37]
I collected the worst insults here below:

  • "you need to take you head out of your A** and smell the roses things are not what you like them to be just because some of you Albanians in Albania want to be European and become AMERICAS SLAVES AND PUPPETS"
  • "POLITICIANS have a hand up their back sides"
  • "so be quiet ignorant KID"
  • "Your brain is clearly not advanced enough to comprehend the truth that's why you keep repeating you self and DENYING evidence that if served to you on a platter that's a sign of defeat"
  • "these things your saying are bullshit propaganda"
  • "I can see you an (scuse my language) American ASS licker"
  • "But I have no intention in continuing to fight with you because you are pretty Ignorant and a Super nationalist but don't forget not all of our people are like you"

I believe this has to stop now- once and for all time! Anything but a indefinite ban is not enough anymore as he has learned nothing and proceeds with the behaviour he already showed in his first edits! noclador 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He also has vandalized the Serbian Air Force article, posting unsourced information, and reverted all spelling corrections into incorrect english along with reverting sourced information by replacing it with biased and unsourced info. Zastavafan76 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have recently given him his final warning, any more and I will deal with it appropriately. Prodego talk 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed Gonz4's inappropriate actions here on Wikipedia, he does not source his claims and worse speaks of heavily biased subjects on very sensitive matters which cause offense to others. It is clear that Gonz4 is not mature enough to follow the rules of Wikipedia. I leave you to ponder and deal with this matter as best as you see fit I trust your judgment will be more than fair. Regards Bluewings 22:16 1, June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents is, to take this matter to WP:ArbCom. Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need to trouble ArbCom with this. This is a highly disruptive user who's been given the benefit of the doubt numerous times and has exhausted any pretense of good faith or collaborative editing. I think that the next offense (now that User:Prodego has left a warning) should result in a lengthy or potentially indefinite block. I'll keep an eye out. MastCell Talk 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the matter is to far gone. In the case that he/she won't get a permanent ban right away. Then take it to arbcom. Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Everyone would be best off if we left all this alone. EVula // talk // // 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at WP:AIV? Corvus cornix 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? —Kurykh 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
At the time that I made my request, there were six names on it. Corvus cornix 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Having six names is quite normal. When the list goes over 10, then notification may be necessary. —Kurykh 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being so concerned. Are you an admin? if so, why not start doing your job? Corvus cornix 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, this is a volunteer position. Therefore, not our "job". (If it isn't, I really want to know where the crap my paycheck is!) As for backlogs: they do happen. Ideally it would stay lower than this, but six is really not worth worrying too much about. It happens. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
(EC) I realise you (Corvus cornix) were genuinely concerned about a developing backlog at AIV. User:Kurykh was trying to be helpful; the sarcasm wasn't necessary. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Kurykh was not trying to be helpful, he/she was more interested in belittling my concerns. If you don't want to get involved at AIV, don't, but don't put me down when I'm trying to fight vandals and am not getting any help. Corvus cornix 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Flyguy's analysis. There is nothing belittling in Kurykh's comment. Please assume good faith. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Where's the AGF from the other side? I guess vandal fighting isn't a high priority around here. Corvus cornix 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Corvus cornix, for tossing WP:AGF straight out the window and start accusing me of slacking off on a thankless job. I will remember that. —Kurykh 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
And for your information, I don't see the absence of AGF in my initial statement. —Kurykh 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you feel the need to comment? If you weren't interested, you could have just not said anything, but by making the comments you made, it was clear that you were basically telling me, "go away, you are not important". I don't know what that last sentence means, either, unless it's a threat, but I will remember, too. Corvus cornix 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we please take this somewhere else? This board is not the WP complaints department, and the original issue has now been resolved. Continuing this discussion here is not helpful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Because I will not stand by such an insult to my intentions. And I never implied that you were not important, and I apologize if you misconstrued it as such. And if you're going to blow this completely out of proportion, then be my guest, but I stand by all my statements that I have made here, minus your interpretation. And if you're going to look at everything as a threat to you, then I have nothing else to say. This will be my last statement regarding this matter. —Kurykh 05:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Corvus, you're completely out of line in your comments here. Please chill out. - Merzbow 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. --Dynaflow babble 06:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Heimstern had asked that discussion not continue here, I had decided not to post on this subject any further, but since there's a gang up on Corvus cornix going on here, I will say one thing further, then nothing more on this topic: If you don't feel the need to do anything, why comment on it? Corvus cornix 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To inform you there are better things to do with your time than leave a notice here when AIV has 6 names listed? - auburnpilot talk 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I left a couple of notes on this on Corvus's talk page. Perhaps it can be dropped for now? Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicous editing behaviour?[edit]

I noticed a a user I disagree with in an article has an incredible number of daily edits on countless other articles. Many edits are only 1 minute apart (in some cases the same time) even though they are on completely different articles. Is that fairly typical behaviour by a heavy Wikipedia user or am I dealing with multiple people sharing the same account? Sorry if this is not the right place to put this question. Just let me know where to if I need to move it. If it wrong to even ask the question, then I apologize in advance. Thanks!
Typical daily edits, in this case for May 30th:

Page 1
Page 2
Notice these two edits, on completely different articles but at the same time? How is that possible?
16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Embudo Pass (→Battle) (top)
16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Walter Synnot
Page 3
In short, 172 edits in one day... LordPathogen 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything suspicious here. 172 edits is nothing for lots of contributors here. Nick 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Non admin comment I think this user is just enthusiastic which is good, if a user is just making minor edits then you can easily get two within the space of a minute, the first edit might have been made (unintentionally) just after a minute had passed on the clock so then another minor edit which doesn't take too much time could easily be done in the same minute, I dont think their is any need to worry about his speed of editing; as long as he/she is not vandalising. Regards --