Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:18, 4 June 2007

Revision as of 06:35, 4 June 2007

Line 199:

:::::To make my stance clear to everyone at the outset: I'm Indian, but largely apolitical, and have no strong views regarding the LTTE situation. However, I believe it is unfair to accuse Blnguyen of inappropriate behaviour. He has given many proofs throughout his time here that he is completely trustworthy and respectful of others' privacy. I do not believe Taprobanus is overreacting - I will not be so cavalier as to brush off someone's fear for their life, nor call them an alarmist - but I believe he needs to take a giant step back and think about whether contributing here under an identifiable username is a good idea at all. I respectfully recommend that he read [[WP:VANISH]] and consider whether editing about a subject which is obviously very close to his heart is going to end up with the result we all want: a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia.

:::::As an aside... we still haven't solved the problem of sources. '''[[User:Riana|Riana]]''' [[User talk:Riana|<font color="green">⁂</font>]] 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

== Giano blocked ==

{{Admin|Hemlock Martinis}} has blocked {{user|Giano II}} 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'''.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g 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. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 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? [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk: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?--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g 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.--[[User:Isotope23|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.

: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

::OK, make it 10 min. I'm fine with an unblock though.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g 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. -- [[User:Hoary|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. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*: Unblocked. I've seen a few silly blocks in my time here. That one took the biscuit. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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.'''--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g 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?????? --[[User:Durin|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. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]^{[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-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? [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(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. --[[User:Durin|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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]} 15:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*:::::::And Hemlock Martinis is hung out to dry. Good grief. --[[User:Durin|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. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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. --[[User:Durin|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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]} 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*Where can I pick up my free pass? --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An RfC on the whole Kittybrester fiasco might be in order.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:That is a very good idea.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

::Agreed. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold">^{''Wiki me up®''}</font>]]</small> 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we are ''again''. This block was clearly unjustified. [[User:Kittybrewster|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. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk: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)? [[User:El C|El_C]] 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:Most of us already knew so-called "cool-down" blocks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Hemlock+Martinis&page=User%3AGiano+II] never cool anybody down, but always heat them up. (If you didn't, please checkout [[WP:BLOCK#When blocking may not be used|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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk: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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]^{[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]} 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

::: Of ''course'' it's inappropriate, ''all'' Giano blocks are inappropriate. It's absurd! <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

=== My explanation ===

After my initial comment to Giano about his comment on Kittybrewster's talk page, Giano replied that Kittybrewster was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=next&oldid=134714453 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=next&oldid=134764057 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. --[[User:Hemlock Martinis|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. --[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g 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? --[[User:Irpen|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.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g 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. --[[User:Edwin Herdman|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. --[[User:Hemlock Martinis|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. [[User:Geogre|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.--[[User:Hemlock Martinis|Hemlock Martinis]] 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kittybrewster&curid=3477071&diff=134998082&oldid=134881150 This] doesn't look too promising. The list of names provided are mostly members of the Baronetcies project as can be seen [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies#Interested Wikipedians|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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''}</font> 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:*I've declined to take part. --[[User:Hemlock Martinis|Hemlock Martinis]] 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What a truly ridiculous explanation. More detail on Hemlock Martinis' talk page. [[User:El C|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harriet_Arbuthnot&curid=7384489&diff=135019443&oldid=134318616] 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. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 07:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

== Block on [[User:Rickyrab]] ==

Just blocked [[User:Rickyrab]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ARickyrab]) and an [[User:204.52.215.107|IP]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3A204.52.215.107]) he's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.52.215.107&oldid=16811053 known to use] for repeated trolling requests for the histories of BJAODN. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeffrey_O._Gustafson&diff=134959094&oldid=134936061] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%5Edemon&diff=134969017&oldid=134961230] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_June_1&diff=134983306&oldid=134972694] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moe_Epsilon&diff=prev&oldid=134957483]) <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>[[User:^demon|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;">demon</span>]]^{[[User_talk:^demon|<span style="color:red">[omg plz]</span>]]}&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)</em>

;Canvassing:

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SunStar_Net&diff=prev&oldid=134947840]

;Near 3RR:

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense&action=history]

;Trolling on DRV:

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_31&diff=prev&oldid=134954512]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_May_31&diff=134966992&oldid=134965015] - Also says he's not willing to accept the closure of the DRV, and plans to reopen it.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_June_1&diff=134983306&oldid=134972694] - Which he did

;Using a known anon in a debate he already commented in:

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3ABad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_3&diff=134975692&oldid=13497431]

;Ignoring my Declined Request, promises to go elsewhere:

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%5Edemon&diff=134980383&oldid=134973330]

Hope this clears up a bit more, in case there's any questions. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>[[User:^demon|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;">demon</span>]]^{[[User_talk:^demon|<span style="color:red">[omg plz]</span>]]}&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)</em>

:He was certainly advised and warned. 48 hours seems fair enough. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:Seems fair to me. Endorse block. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<font color="#006449">desat</font>]] 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for trolling. <nowiki></nowiki> &mdash; [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] | [[User talk:Rickyrab|Talk]] 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Civility of Jeffery O. Gustafson ==

I'd hate to do this, but... {{user1|Jeffrey O. Gustafson}} 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeffrey_O._Gustafson&diff=135128263&oldid=135128084]

Sincerly [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:Ok, off with his head! ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::Awww, I was using that... --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|&lt;*&gt;]] 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. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 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...--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Look at his comment above that, where he's asked to reinstate the BJAODN pages ([[User_talk:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson#Request_for_BJAODN_subpages_and_their_edit_histories|here]]), and the comment at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense 3|here]] (in the middle). I'm sure there's others. [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Found another talk revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson&diff=prev&oldid=135081184]. It appears to me he's removing comments he doesn't agree with to save face. [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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." --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|&lt;*&gt;]] 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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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. [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Yeah Jeffy O. Gustafson's archiving practices are a bit exentric. I think [[WP:USER#Removal_of_warnings|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." <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::I'm saying the problem is his civility, not the reverts of his pages. [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 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.--[[User:Isotope23|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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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. <nowiki></nowiki> &mdash; [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] | [[User talk: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 [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 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 [[:Category:Administrators open to recall|stand for reconfirmation]] is in order? '''<font color="006400">[[User:Simoes|Simões]]</font>''' (<font size="1">^{[[User talk:Simoes|talk]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Simoes|contribs]]}</font>) 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, [[WP:RFAR|the kind, loving gentlemen of the Arbitration Committe are that way]]. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]} 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:Hahahahaha, reconfirmation! --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|&lt;*&gt;]] 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::Heh, annoying red link or not, Jeffrey's a great admin. This is bordering on trolling now. -<u>[[User:AKMask|<font color="000000">M</font>]]<small>^{[[User talk:AKMask|<font color="000000">ask?</font>]]}</small></u> 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. [[User:Whstchy|'''W'''hs]][[User talk:Whstchy|'''i'''tc]][[Special:Contributions/Whstchy|'''h'''y]] 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:OK, a slap on Jeffrey's wrist is in order.<br>

:<nowiki> *slap*</nowiki>

:There. Can we all go on about our business, please? Thank you! [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#009900">P<font color="#00AA00">h<font color="#00BB00">a<font color="#00CC00">e<font color="#00DD00">d</font>r</font>i</font>e</font>l</b>]] - 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::OK, time to move on here.--[[User:Isotope23|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. [[User:Nick|Nick]] 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::Can we still [[beheading|increase the distance]] between his ears and shoulders? :p ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 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, [[WP:AN/I#Block_on_User:Thewinchester|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWJBscribe&diff=135129880&oldid=135129651 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, [[User:Thewinchester|Thewinchester]] [[User_talk: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. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jeffery is now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense&diff=135102810&oldid=135098180 removing Talk page edits] which dare to point to where one can find the BJAODN content. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:OK! OFF WITH HIS HEAD! OFF WITH IT! HE COULD JOIN THE [[Wild Hunt|HEADLESS HUNT]] FOR ME INSTEAD. :) &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yawn... [[WP:EL]]: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|&lt;*&gt;]] 10:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:No, Nick. We must lynch him. It is the only way the community will be satisfied. -<b><font color="#800000">[[User:Pilotguy|Pilotguy]]</font> <small>[[User_talk:Pilotguy|hold short]]</small></b> 13:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:Cmapm|Cmapm]] on [[Estonian SSR]] ==

Line 390 ⟶ 231:

As of [[June 2]], the page is under protection. This would appear to resolve the issue for now, but it is not a stable solution. [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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.

[[User:Sriramwins|Sriramwins]] 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*I don't see evidence {{user|Baccarat}} is a troll, but I blocked the other 2 accounts.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 20:14, 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. [[User:The Behnam|The Behnam]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:Night Gyr]] ==

Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_31&diff=prev&oldid=135158496 this diff]. Admin Night Gyr has announced that s/he will be providing the press with material that was deleted as a BLP violation. [[User:Corvus cornix|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) [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk: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? [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]} 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ANight+Gyr%40enwiki Night Gyr has been desysopped]. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Guillom&page=User%3ANight+Gyr%40enwiki] - 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" - [[User:David Gerard|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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:I think everyone read your grammar wrong. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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. :) [[WP:PANIC|Don't panic]], folks. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk: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... -- [[User:ChrisO|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. [[User:CMummert|CMummert]] · <small>[[User talk:CMummert|talk]]</small> 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. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk: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 - [[User:David Gerard|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? [[User:Geogre|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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]} 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::and I was pretty sure the writer was a dude, so ''her'' was unambiguous to me. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Ah, I see. Not to me, I'm afraid :) [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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"? [[User:JavaTenor|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. [[User:Corvus cornix|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANight_Gyr&diff=135153145&oldid=135152667 this] comment on my talk page. I just figured I'd send her the text directly instead of such a biased opinion on it. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:: I was going on the Sean Hornbeck precedent. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk: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? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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? [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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, [[User:Guillom|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. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Not originally, I edited it after I got a message on my talk page about it. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::This is the ambiguity: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_31&diff=prev&oldid=135158496]. 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. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 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. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]^{[[User talk: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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

** If the concern was that she wouldn't want it on the internet... [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ^{[[User talk: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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::tell that to FCYTravis. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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?" [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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" --[[User_talk:Pgk|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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|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... <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 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.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=135172344&oldid=135172087] was pretty unambigious that I wasn't going to do what I got desyssopped for seeming like I was going to do. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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''. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

***Guy is obviously right and I believe I said this above (using more words). [[User:Newyorkbrad|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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/Everyking desysopped|the signpost article]], so don't take my word on it. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. [[User:The Land|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. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] ^{[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]} 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:Seconded, it was absolutely an overreaction. Almost [[2007_Boston_Mooninite_Scare|Bostonian]] in scope. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::Thirded; I'd even go for [[The Sky Is Falling|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. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 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. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 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. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 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. [[User:Morven|Matthew Brown (Morven)]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANight_Gyr&diff=135153145&oldid=135152667 that], as linked earlier in the post, is why I sought her opinion. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I corraled Fred Bauder and Morven, who are looking into the thing right this moment - [[User:David Gerard|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. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

* You know something? If Night Gyr's reaction had been "Jeez, you're right, that was dumb, wasn't it. Oops", I dont think we'd be having this conversation here. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

** Actually, I went to change and clarify within minutes of the first message on my talk page, but the wheels were already in motion. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 22:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

** like if you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_31&diff=next&oldid=135168108 this] I actually changed the wording ''before'' the ani post was made. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Night_Gyr&diff=135168956&oldid=135153145 first I hear of it] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FCYTravis&diff=135169404&oldid=135027610 reply on his talk page, not realizing that I was misunderstood], then I fix the wording in the next three minutes. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 22:06, 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!". <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small>

:::*no one had ever said anything but positive things to me about talking to the subject... [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=135185657 here]. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::yeah, you are misreading it. All I did was click [http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/eli+saslow/ this link] on [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801370.html?hpid%203Dsec-sports#67401458305783383 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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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 [[WP:V|verifiable]] and [[WP:RS|well-sourced]], and it is absolutely clear that the article was deleted out of process. So much for [[WP:NOT|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.''' [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font color="#11A"><b><tt>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</tt></b></font>]] 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. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

***I was of course using the term in [[Fascist (epithet)|the metaphorical sense]], to express my level of disgust at this witch hunt. (Oops, there's another metaphor.) [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font color="#11A"><b><tt>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</tt></b></font>]] 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. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

****[[Godwin's Law]], game over, you lose. [[User:Corvus cornix|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. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>}

:::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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::...No I wasn't. I've clarified this many times. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

: I dunno but if I were a <s>reptile</s>gentleman 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. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ^{''[[User talk: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 - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

===Emergency desysopping===

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. [[User:The Land|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. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk: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'. [[User:The Land|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. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk: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. [[User:The Land|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 - [[User:David Gerard|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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Has NightGyr been resysopped yet, now that it's been clarified, or is arbcom still reviewing? [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 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) -- <small>[[User talk:Drini|drini]] ^{[[:m:User:Drini|[meta:] ]]}_{[[:commons:User:Drini|[commons:] ]]}</small> 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... [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|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. [[User:Geogre|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. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] ^{[[User talk: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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

=== Restoration to user sandbox space? ===

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. --[[User:Tbeatty|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. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

===Assuming good faith===

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! -- [[WP:CI|&#x2611; ]]<b>[[User:Sam|Sam]]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

===Deleted content is rarely secret content===

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". [[User:Haukurth|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. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::More like burning down the barn with the horses still inside. <small>(if we're gonna go wrong with our metaphors let's go ''really'' wrong)</small>[[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a status update on the arbcom proceedings or anything? [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|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. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

==Question@[[User:Stevewk]]==

<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; padding: 6px; margin-right: .5em;">[[Image:☑.svg|20px|Resolved]] [[Template:Resolved|Resolved]]</span>{{#if: MOS issues explained and ignored; blocked for 60 hours by [[User:Tariqabjotu|Tariqabjotu]] for multiple 3RR.|<span style="font-size: smaller;">MOS issues explained and ignored; blocked for 60 hours by [[User:Tariqabjotu|Tariqabjotu]] for multiple 3RR. --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 02:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)</span>}}</div>

[[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 ... [[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]] 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Point him in the direction of [[WP:MOS|the manual of style?]] [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

== Block evasion by SanchiTachi ==

Recently, [[User:SanchiTachi|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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi|a check user case]], which was then added to by another vigilant editor. As a result, it has been confirmed that [[User:SanchiTachi|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. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:Write, and document, a new one? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::I guess I could try writing a new template - it will be my first shot at it. --[[User:Haemo|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. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Is {{tl|IPsock}} helpful? -- [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]]^{[[User talk:Flyguy649|talk]]}[[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|_contribs]] 03:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Sanchi's sock-puppets have been blocked now. --[[User:GentlemanGhost|GentlemanGhost]] 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== Gon4z for the xth time ==

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:

[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive46#User:Gon4z reported by User:MrMacMan (Result:24h)|here]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive47#User:Gon4z reported by User:MrMacMan|here]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive238#Unsourced material/vandalism, 3rr/edit warring, ownership of articles and personal attack problems with Gon4z|here]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive242#Unsourced material/vandalism, 3rr/edit warring, ownership of articles and personal attack problems with Gon4z|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243#Gon4z is back|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. <br />

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:

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M-84&diff=134950621&oldid=134706917] He left the changed sentence unfinished and has no sources for his edit.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbian_Air_Force&diff=134948538&oldid=134886278] 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”.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BRDM-2&diff=134947837&oldid=134379591] He deleted 10 lines without sources-just stating that the other user’s additions are “vandalism”.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo_War&diff=134947013&oldid=13477672] 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.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_Albania&diff=134945625&oldid=134815436] 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”.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanians&diff=134944379&oldid=134914779] 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".<br />

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslam_in_Albania&diff=124252893&oldid=122742052 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslam_in_Albania&diff=124739448&oldid=124638784 deleting paragraphs] he doesn't like from talk pages! and now a bit more of his insulting stuff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslam_in_Albania&diff=122732699&oldid=122241730], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslam_in_Albania&diff=122151114&oldid=121944067], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslam_in_Albania&diff=121846274&oldid=121656914], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslam_in_Albania&diff=121628922&oldid=118063965]<br />

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"<br />

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbia&diff=70156075&oldid=70111980 first edits!] [[User:Noclador|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. [[User:Zastavafan76|Zastavafan76]] 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:I have recently given him his final warning, any more and I will deal with it appropriately. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]} 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 [[User:Bluewings|Bluewings]] 22:16 1, June 2007 (UTC)

::<s>My two cents is, to take this matter to [[WP:ArbCom]].</s> Mads [[User:Angelbo|Angelbo]] ^{[[User_talk:Angelbo|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Angelbo|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. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' ^{[[User Talk: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 [[User:Angelbo|Angelbo]] ^{[[User_talk:Angelbo|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Angelbo|Contribs]]} 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[WP:AIV]] ==

{{resolved|1=Everyone would be best off if we left all this alone. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)}}

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

:What's wrong with it? —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::At the time that I made my request, there were six names on it. [[User:Corvus cornix|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. —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks for being so concerned. Are you an admin? if so, why not start doing your job? [[User:Corvus cornix|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. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(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. [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]]^{[[User talk:Flyguy649|talk]]}[[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|_contribs]] 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. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I agree with Flyguy's analysis. There is nothing belittling in Kurykh's comment. Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(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. [[User:Corvus cornix|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. —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::And for your information, I don't see the absence of AGF in my initial statement. —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 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. [[User:Corvus cornix|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. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(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. —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 05:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Corvus, you're completely out of line in your comments here. Please chill out. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Seconded. [[User:Dynaflow|<font color="#285991">--'''''Dynaflow'''''</font>]] [[User_talk:Dynaflow|<small><font color="#285991">babble</font></small>]] 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? [[User:Corvus cornix|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? - '''[[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="mediumblue">auburn</font><font color="darkorange">pilot</font>]]''' [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 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? [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]]^{[[User talk:Flyguy649|talk]]}[[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|_contribs]] 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:Betacommand]] ==

Line 838 ⟶ 399:

*I suggest that editors who want to have articles in BJAODN stop griping and wheel warring, and show instead, after ''[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/2004-03-25|three years' notice]]'' of the copyright violations here and many "I'll work on this." offers on this noticeboard dating from ''three months ago'' that have not been followed up with any action, that they are actually willing to back their talk up with effort to actually fix the problem. There's a to-do table at [[Wikipedia talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense#List of deleted articles to be undeleted and renamed to sub-pages, if they satisfy several checks]]. I've started you off. Work on it. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Suspicous editing behaviour? ==

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!<br />

Typical daily edits, in this case for May 30th:<br />

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070530153921&target=Evrik Page 1]<br />

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070530173136&target=Evrik Page 2]<br />

Notice these two edits, on completely different articles but ''at the same time''? How is that possible?<br />

16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Embudo Pass (→Battle) (top)<br />

16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Walter Synnot <br />

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070531015610&target=Evrik Page 3]<br />

In short, '''172 edits''' in one day...

[[User:LordPathogen|LordPathogen]] 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

: I don't see anything suspicious here. 172 edits is nothing for lots of contributors here. [[User:Nick|Nick]] 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:: <small>'''Non admin comment'''</small> 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 --<font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">[[User:The Sunshine Man|'''The Sunshine''']]</font> <font color="2E82F4">[[User talk:The Sunshine Man|'''Man''']]</font></font> 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

: Looks fine to me - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (wishes her edit count was that low :) )

:::(e.c.) Editors who "go that fast" are often using semi-automated tools to help them do what would otherwise be rather tedious maintenence tasks quickly and effortlessly. You can learn more about them at [[WP:TOOLS]]. [[User:Dynaflow|<font color="#285991">--'''''Dynaflow'''''</font>]] [[User_talk:Dynaflow|<small><font color="#285991">babble</font></small>]] 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yep, looks fine. If you look at the two 16:44 [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] using [[WP:POPUP|popups]], you can see the first was made at 16:44:14 and the other at 16:44:52 (38 seconds apart). - '''[[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="mediumblue">auburn</font><font color="darkorange">pilot</font>]]''' [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:Editors who use a web browser which supports [[tabbed browsing]] (I am one such editor) may also appear to make a bot-like number of edits in rapid succession. Looking at my recent history, I logged eighteen edits in one minute rolling back the addition of a spam link to a series of articles&mdash;and I've ''never'' used any automated or semi-automated editing tool. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::Indeed, I use [[Safari (web browser)|Safari]], and have repeatedly gotten close to ten edits in a single minute. 172 edits in a single day isn't that hard, either... in looking over my [[User:EVula#Editing milestones|editing milestones]], I see that I averaged '''500''' edits a day for a bit (broke 11k on Nov. 23, broke 12k on Nov. 25). I have no doubt that someone with more free time than I could approach a similar number, especially if they use a semi-automated tool (which I don't). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 19:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::I agree - anyone who's ventured into the murky world of [[WP:WSS]] can easily get their edits up to 5-600 a day without particularly trying even working manually, and easily over 1000-2000 in a day if you're doing something like mass-changing categories using [[WP:AWB|AWB]]. As regards the simultaneous edits, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for this - if I move an article I'll submit the edits to the double-redirects simultaneously, to avoid either creating temporary links to a redlinked page, or temporarily leaving them as double-redirects, and I'm sure a lot of editors do the same<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — [[User:Iridescenti|<font color="#E45E05">irides</font><font color="#C1118C">centi</font>]] [[User_talk:Iridescenti|<small><font color="#5CA36A"><i>(talk to me!)</i></font></small>]]</font> 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Most of the contributions are actually WikiProject tagging of articles, something I do all the time. It's possible to do 600-700 a day even reading each article carefully, and I've in fact had to set up a second account for those so people following my contribs as an admin and editor don't get lost in pages of tagging. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 02:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== policy on reverting change? ==

Line 878 ⟶ 412:

:He's edited the template since, so I would imagine he's down widdit. [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none"><small>►</small></span>]]) 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Seven new [[User:MascotGuy]] sockpuppets ==

{{resolved|1=blocked by [[User:Alison]] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)}}

There are seven unblocked MascotGuy socks that are listed at [[WP:LTA/MG]]. They are {{userlinks|Public vs. Private}}, {{userlinks|Coppertop Guy}}, {{userlinks|Dream Lover Guy}}, {{userlinks|Mr. Spoke-'em}}, {{userlinks|Wildfighters}}, {{userlinks|Baxter's Glowball}}, and {{userlinks|Zapper Guy}}. [[User:Tregoweth]] usually blocks these types of sockpuppets, but he/she hasn't edited since 22:54, 28 May 2007. <font color="orange">[[User:Squirepants101|Pants]]</font>^{[[User talk:Squirepants101|(T)]]} 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== Anon editing and [[User:Stevewk]] ==

Seems similar ... could someone look @ this ...

: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.110.157.87 Contributions 70.110.157.87]

: [[Special:Contributions/Stevewk]]

Thanks. [[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]] 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The specific pages are

* [[The Work of J.G.A. Pocock]]

* [[Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon]]

* [[The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]

* [[Edward Gibbon]]

* [[The Club (Literary Club)]]

* [[Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]

I don't want to revert them ... but 70.110.157.87 seems like {{user|Stevewk}} ... [[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]] 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== Angry Sun ==

He made fun of me and called me a idiot[[User:Marioman12|Marioman12]] 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:<small>Non-admin comment</small> Could you provide some context for this? I can't really tell what's going on. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 22:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::Probably [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&diff=prev&oldid=135397681 this]. Other than claiming you are psychic, it's [[WP:OR|original research]] to claim something that was seen in a dream, in the future, or as a weird hunch. If you want to put something in an article, especially in an article about an unreleased game, please source it. That diff and the text above wasn't a personal attack, but it was a tad [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]]. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">[[User:x42bn6|<b>x42bn6</b>]] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">[[User talk:x42bn6|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/x42bn6|Mess]]</span></span> 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:::So, who wants to write [[WP:PSYCHICPOWERS]] to cover this defense against [[WP:OR|original research]]. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::My ascended planar consciousness is telling me that would be needless [[WP:CREEP|instruction creep]]. Marioman12 certainly earns points for originality though. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:tjstrf|talk]]</small> 23:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: Actually that policy ''is'' added during april 2009. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 23:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, even if you are psychic it's no different than adding something because you say you saw it with your own two eyes. If it's not published in a reliable source, we can't really rely on it. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not helping the situation and my mind is f***ed up so that's how I see into the future for once it wasn't something completly useless like the side of the building I'm sorry if this sounds ridiclous but I think its true I think he over did it by calling me names and he could of just counted it under original research not been so mean[[User:Marioman12|Marioman12]] 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:He never called you names, so I don't really see what the problem is here. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::I think it's because it isn't exactly nice to call someone "kid" or a "Yoshi-fan" as a response to something that goes against guidelines. Probably not a personal attack, but uncivil, and maybe warrants a nice gentle message. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">[[User:x42bn6|<b>x42bn6</b>]] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">[[User talk:x42bn6|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/x42bn6|Mess]]</span></span> 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:First off I got no beef with Duris Bane that link is not right this is what Angry Sun said to me:

''The only people that are psychics are people in cartoons and shows like Pet Psychic. Face it kid. You are just a die-hard Yoshi Fan. Angry Sun 20:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)''

First off. I did.

Second that was not a personal attack. I suggest you read the policy.

''For it to be a direct attack I would have said..."You are not freaking psychic idiot." But I did not. Therefore I didn't attack you.

Also IP...Don't freaking trust everything you read. This guy is full of himself. I have dreams that I'm Godzilla. That doesn't make it true does it? Angry Sun 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)''

[[User:Marioman12|Marioman12]] 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::He mentioned what he ''didn't'' say to make it a personal attack. That doesn't make it a personal attack. I think maybe one should pull away from this issue a little - it is incivility rather than personal attacks. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">[[User:x42bn6|<b>x42bn6</b>]] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">[[User talk:x42bn6|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/x42bn6|Mess]]</span></span> 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He said i'm full of myself and freakin psycho idiot [[User:Marioman12|Marioman12]] 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also this isn't his first time: ''== Please remain civil ==

Comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&diff=prev&oldid=134467513 this] are not helpful. The uncivil behavior of other editors (even anonymous editors) is no excuse for making uncivil comments yourself. Everyone can read the comments you write, and you may give others a bad view of Wikipedia. Often, editors will behave rudely in an attempt to provoke others — do not allow yourself to fall into this trap. (This and more is discussed at [[Wikipedia:Civility]]. Please take the time to read it, if you have no already done so.)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_Bros.&diff=prev&oldid=134478619 This editor] is apparently unfamiliar with our policies. There was no need to be insulting to him. Instead of an edit summary of "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_Bros.&diff=next&oldid=134478619 Go ask Nsider for god sakes. We aren't GameFAQS.]", try something along the lines of "Removing discussion unrelated to article." Remember — [[Help:Edit summary|Edit summaries]] are intended to give a description of your edit. User:Pagrashtak|Pagra

:Look - everyone just needs to be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and stop jumping at every little comment. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not a battleground]]. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He made me feel bad [[User:Marioman12|Marioman12]] 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yes? And? If you have a serious problem, start a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] on him. Other than that, the admins are not your personal feelings police. I'm sorry you're upset, but sometimes people will do that to you, and all we can really do is ask them nicely to stop. I see you haven't decided to talk to him about this - perhaps that would be a place to start. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Marioman, I don't think from reading this that Angry Sun really meant to call you an idiot, though I can understand why you think that they have and why you feel bad about it. Sometimes people are not nice to you, and you just have to remember that they are a name on a screen and they don't know who you are or anything about you. My advice would be not to reply to or deal with Angry Sun for a while until you have both calmed down, and just edit the articles. I would also say that you should read [[WP:RS|What is a reliable source?]] and [[WP:NOR|No Original Research]] for what you can and can't put in a page on Wikipedia. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:3bulletproof16|3bulletproof16]] ==

Affected articles: [[Staples Center]], [[Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena]], [[Pontiac Silverdome]].

[[User:3bulletproof16|3bulletproof16]] is a prolific editor of pro wrestling articles (and not much else) who is apparently part of a small group of Wikipedia editors who feel the need to insert pro wrestling references into as many unrelated articles as possible, including articles for sports venues. Judging by his edit history, he has been flirting with violating (if not outright violating) [[WP:OWN]] for a number of months. His only response to my counsel that pro wrestling is a fringe topic and not a sporting event was to "tell that to [[WP:PW]]". Can an admin with some weight to throw around set him straight? Thanks in advance, [[User:I Always Win|I Always Win]] 23:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:This looks suspiciously like a [[User:Chadbryant|Chadbryant]] sockpuppet to me. In his last run before being banned he was attempting to remove the same information from various articles. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''}</font> 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. How about addressing the issue at hand instead of throwing out the SP accusations? That seems to the the course of action when a Wikiclique feels threatened. [[User:I Always Win|I Always Win]] 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry [[User:Chadbryant|Chadbryant]], but I'm not a member of the wrestling project. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''}</font> 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::This is a ridiculous request - firstly, no admin can interfere in content disputes. Secondly, pro-wrestling is not a fringe topic. Thirdly, whether or not a pro-wrestling subject matter deserves mention depends on individual articles. I would recommend that you discuss these content disputes on the article talkpages and at worst, open an article RfC. And 3bulletproof16 is a respectable editor. [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="orange">'''Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)'''</font>]] 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that much of the rasslin' content on Wikipedia needs to be purged, and that [[WP:PW]] seems to not take [[WP:OWN]] very seriously. The sockpuppet junk merely reflects the immaturity often associated with fans of this pseudo-sport.[[User:I Always Win|I Always Win]] 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:[[WP:NPA]] [[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::Don't lump together all editors of a project together, because of actions of a few. That's very rude. Just because wrestling is scripted/fake (and for whatever reason: you seem to hate it): it's still a notable subject for Wikipedia. As for sports venues: if a notable wrestling event took place at one, then it should be listed on the sports venue article. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] 23:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Why? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:::[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22chad+bryant%22+%22i+always+win%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Smells like socks]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''}</font> 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Try bathing. [[User:I Always Win|I Always Win]] 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::How about some on-wiki proof? [[User talk:Tv316/Archive 01#I think they were Chad.2C yea.]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''}</font> 00:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::Save your manic accusations for someone else. You can have your precious rasslin' back. I have no interest in having a single-purpose account. [[User:I Always Win|I Always Win]] 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out what his user page says now. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_Always_Win] [[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:While I tend to agree with I Always Win that wrestling is an overexposed pseudo-sport, it is also highly notable, thus his arguments are baseless. Personally, I think this entire string should be added to a new and improved [[WP:BJAODN]]. Its never wise to be uncivil on an administrators noticeboard... ;o)[[User:Resolute|Resolute]] 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== JB196 sockpuppet ==

{{resolved|1=blocked by [[User: Phaedriel|Phaedriel]] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)}}

{{vandal|Staysswungbaby}}. Please block, thanks. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]_{''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''}</font> 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== Question ==

Can you block someone for not spelling correctly at all on talk pages[[User:Marioman12|Marioman12]] 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:No, not really - but if it becomes so persistent, and the user ignores requests repeatedly, that it becomes disruptive, then possibly. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::And even then, only if the misspellings become so incoherent that it becomes disruptive. Nobody wants to spend minutes decoding "wt i ths thg u r talkin but" is. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">[[User:x42bn6|<b>x42bn6</b>]] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">[[User talk:x42bn6|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/x42bn6|Mess]]</span></span> 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well he says he is spelling impaired when I ask him about which is Bs is you ask me[[User:Marioman12|Marioman12]] 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:Not everyone has perfect spelling, and some choose not to bother with spell-checking as long as the message gets across. We don't go round handing out warnings because you spelt tomorrow with too many "m"s, for example. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">[[User:x42bn6|<b>x42bn6</b>]] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">[[User talk:x42bn6|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/x42bn6|Mess]]</span></span> 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He spells "to" and "try" wrong[[User:Marioman12|Marioman12]] 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:No big deal. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">[[User:x42bn6|<b>x42bn6</b>]] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">[[User talk:x42bn6|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/x42bn6|Mess]]</span></span> 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example: ''Diu you rilly want me tue fix it. Anubiz 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)''

[[User:Marioman12|Marioman12]] 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:You're complaining about spelling mistakes when your sentences suffer from a distinct lack of punctuation and separation of sentences? [[WP:KETTLE|Pot, meet kettle]].

:The user is question is {{user|Anubiz}}, with comments by Marioman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anubiz&diff=135177762&oldid=135168929 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anubiz&diff=135196546&oldid=135194361 here]. [[User:Phony Saint|Phony Saint]] 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::The admins are not spelling police, and they're not going to hunt down a user on that basis. Talk to the [[WP:CIVIL|nicely]] about it before seeking some kind of administrative action. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 00:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

: [[WP:ANI]] is not an [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Angry Sun|end-all]] for all complaints. [[User:Seicer| '''<span style="color: #B33C1A; font: Trebuchet MS; font-size: 10px;">Seicer</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:Seicer|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]])</small> 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

: Spelling is *not* a matter for AN/I. In some cases, the user may have a disability (note - it seems the user in question *does* - see his user page) or very poor education, or maybe just not very good at English, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them editing the encyclopaedia so long as they conform to our [[WP:POLICY|policies]] when editing. Wikipedia does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to edit in [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Re:New block for [[User:Hayden5650|Hayden5650]] ==

{{resolved}}

Although [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral]] began this discussion based on the above-mentioned user's edits on Romani-related articles, Romani- and Holocaust-related articles are not the only ones he has vandalized. He has also deleted Maori names under edit summaries like "rm ''nonsense''," just because he does not speak Maori (he gave this reason [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#M.C4.81ori_names here], using his IP address). Even in the article and talk page on [[Aquamarine (color)]], he attempted to change the spelling of "color" to British English "colour" with absolutely no discussion, usually through redirects [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aquamarine_%28color%29&diff=prev&oldid=134271426], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquamarine_%28color%29&diff=prev&oldid=134271424], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquamarine_%28color%29&diff=prev&oldid=134271472]. As is clearly shown in the current version of the article, all three of the edits to the last article were reverted. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He has violated [[Wikipedia:Civil]] on the [[Talk:Marlboro (cigarette)|Marlboro talk page]], using offensive language ("nanny-state PC drivel," "you really do have your head up your rear end"). He knowingly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Introduction&diff=prev&oldid=101535668] removed the part of [[Wikipedia:Introduction]] that was ''not'' supposed to be removed, not once but three times [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Introduction&diff=prev&oldid=101535668], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Introduction&diff=next&oldid=101535673], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Introduction&diff=next&oldid=101535715]. He has vandalized the article [[Homosexuality]] as well, including one offensive edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=129473239], which was reported as vandalism on his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hayden5650#Vandalism_to_Homosexuality]. The list goes on and on (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070530012428&limit=500&target=Hayden5650] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20070530012354&limit=500&target=Hayden5650]). --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::Reblocked. While some of the edit diffs above predate the first block, his editing patterns since his last block expired demonstrate no difference in behaviour from what he was originally blocked for. As it was for the same offence I bypassed the 4-level warning. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Disruptive editing by Vilerocks ==

I put it on [[WP:CN]] as I simply do not have any more patience. [[User:Vilerocks]]/[[User:BassxForte]] has been editing disruptively since January. I am very interested in getting something very, very quickly. Evidence [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BassxForte|here]], [[Talk:List_of_Mega_Man_ZX_characters|here]] and [[Talk:Ciel (Mega Man Zero)|here]]. - [[User:Zero1328|Zero1328]] _{[[User talk:Zero1328|Talk?]]} 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Problem With An Anonymous Creationist ==

It was recommended that I post this complaint/concern here, rather than [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]]. Anonymous user [[User:12.214.122.176|12.214.122.176]] has been making repeated edits to [[Behemoth]] in order to make its POV more creationist-friendly [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behemoth&diff=128336658&oldid=128331351 here]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behemoth&diff=129996584&oldid=129990448 here]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behemoth&diff=next&oldid=135421981 here]], and now, in [[Leviathan]], too, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leviathan&diff=next&oldid=135421444 here]]. When I warned him about this back in May, he became [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:12.214.122.176 insulting and argumentative]]. Is it possible to do something about this anonymous person?--[[User:Apokryltaros|Mr Fink]] 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

: Unfortunately it's hard to argue the case on the edits as all of them were unsourced [[WP:OR|possible original research]] (quite likely true, but an independent source is going to need to be found to back them up. I note the other editor is guilty of the same, for the record - Dinosaurs-Unleashed is a tertiary source effectively.) The last comment on the linked talk page appears to point to a more conciliatory tone. I don't think admin action is required - it would seem the IP editor is quite young (I'm guessing < 13). If they get into edit wars over sourced content in articles or over non-RS sourced content that they are contributing, let us know. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Followup: I left a message on the IP's talk page. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== {{User|EdwinCasadoBaez}} ==

Line 1,027 ⟶ 428:

:Sockpuppet blocked, original block extended, firm explanatory response e-mail sent. Let's keep all future discussion in one place. [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="red">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="green">ka</font>]] 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::This is probably the same editor as [[User:EdwinCasado]], who was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:EdwinCasado indef blocked] as a vandal in October. [[User:Natalie Erin|Natalie]] 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[Otane]] ==

I have noticed two editors creating substantially the same article [[Otane]] in the last hour. It was created by [[User:Tabletoptuna]], deleted, and then re-created by [[User:Lollypop land wow]]. In both cases, the article was virtually empty; the latter version consists solely of the text: "hi there no info on otane." The former version was similar but added the information that "otane is a dump."

A similar article was deleted twice a few days ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Otane].

This may be a case for [[WP:SSP]] but I can't determine exactly what is going on, and I don't know whether the earlier deleted versions were created by either of these editors or by other editors. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:It's a town - so, probably people from the town making test edits. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::I just added a redirect to the district it's a part of, so people will no longer be inclined to make such edits. I'll watchlist it, too - that should solve the problem. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Don't do that. It should be a redlink so that people will see there's no article and maybe someone will make a legitimate stub. (Unless you want to open the "small towns are/are not notable" can of worms) --[[User Talk:Random832|Random832]] 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I made a little stub, like the other ones there instead. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== MaxwellTeke's User page ==

Line 1,300 ⟶ 687:

== [[User:Danny Daniel]] sockpuppet ==

{{resolved|1=Blocked by [[User:MaxSem]]. <font color="orange">[[User:Squirepants101|Pants]]</font>^{[[User talk:Squirepants101|(T)]]} 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)}}

Please block {{userlinks|Sugarkisser}}. The user has created a bunch of hoaxes just like the other likely sockpuppets listed at [[User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel]]. <font color="orange">[[User:Squirepants101|Pants]]</font>^{[[User talk:Squirepants101|(T)]]} 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Bot going crazy ==

{{resolved|1=No problem with bot}}

The Bot that adds a date to the Citation Needed tags seems to be messing up an article I'm working on. See this version right after the Bot hit it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Core-Plus_Mathematics_Project&oldid=135576508]. All the refs in the article are messed up. Before the Bot did its thing, all the refs were fine. For now, I've deleted the Citation Needed tags. Wonder what's going on. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Line 1,316 ⟶ 705:

== about the username Sinepgib ==

{{resolved|1=Block seems appropriate and endorsed. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)}}

Line 1,355 ⟶ 745:

::: Yep, your right, he continued after it - agree we should leave it as it is pending CyclePat agreeing to leave the issue. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Contribution history ==

<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:{{{1|}}}|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''

Line 1,384 ⟶ 775:

== {{User|Pigsonthewing}} ==

Can someone suggest a sensible place to report these [[WP:PA|personal attacks]] (in the edit summaries)?:

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APigsonthewing&diff=135619433&oldid=135590721]

Line 1,398 ⟶ 790:

:I've redacted the attack and make a stab at an explanation on the users talk page. -<u>[[User:AKMask|<font color="000000">M</font>]]<small>^{[[User talk:AKMask|<font color="000000">ask?</font>]]}</small></u> 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== User talk:Salmoria ==

Can action please be taken to block this User for a small period of time. They have become involved in a revert war,been told off the [[WP:AN/3RR]] rule,and has ignored. They have vandalised my discussion page with fake vandal claims and repeatedly ignored advice given to them by other admin persons on their discussion page. Refer [[Tina Turner]] for the history of edits and reversals.[[User:Maggott2000|Maggott2000]] 23:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Line 1,421 ⟶ 813:

::Thanks. I appreciate it. I also left him a note on his talk page telling him to tell Nora Greenwald to contact Wikipedia if she wants. I also provided the link to the e-mail address for him. [[User:Nikki311|Nikki311]] 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

== June 2007 ==

Blanking of editor's comment by [[User:Someguy0830]] at [[Wikipedia talk:Village pump]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump&curid=291477&diff=135668681&oldid=135647634 first instance] [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

:<s>What the heck is your problem? Nothing was blanked, you were not hurt, and if anything he helped your message by not making it look like some newbie made the post. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)</s>

Line 1,443 ⟶ 836:

== Request for admin action re confirmed sockpuppetry ==

{{resolved|[[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)}}

Line 1,448 ⟶ 842:

:The sockmaster is blocked for one month, obvious sock indef, his IP for a week. I see no point in blocking the dynamic IPs he used ten days ago. [[User:MaxSem|Max<font size="+1">''S''</font>em]] 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

== Misuse of Vandalism Template ==

Article for [[Joe Eigo]] has ostensibly been edited by the subject, contains zero citations, and is in need of a clean up. Made attempts to get citations for some statements, removed others, and tagged the article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Eigo&diff=135692626&oldid=131993112], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Eigo&diff=next&oldid=135692626]). My edits have been repeatedly reverted, first by [[User:Naconkantari|Naconkantari]], then [[User:Starnestommy|Starnestommy]]. I can no longer try to improve the article or I will be in breach of 3RR. I've also been given a vandal warning, which is obviously completely unwarranted. --[[User:81.179.113.175|81.179.113.175]] 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Line 1,459 ⟶ 854:

Agreed. As to the article, I note that, in one of the diffs you provided, you used the autobiography tag. This is used when the subject has extensively edited the article. An editor named JoeEigo has edited the article, but only twice. What would you define as ostensibly or extensively? Also, do we have/need proof that this is Mr. Eigo? He's a minor celebrity, but well-known to LazyTowners like myself and is as susceptible to pranks as, say [[Julianna Rose Mauriello]]--[[User:Ispy1981|Ispy1981]] 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:JB196]], now using IP's ==

{{resolved|1=Blocked one of the socks, and Yamamoto got the other one and the semiprotection. '''[[User:Riana|Riana]]''' [[User talk:Riana|<font color="green">⁂</font>]] 03:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)}}

{{ipvandal|62.231.243.138}}

Line 1,516 ⟶ 912:

== IP needing block repeatedly vandalising [[WP:AIV]] ==

*{{resolved|blocked for 31 hours}}

{{IPvandal|71.108.59.113}} was previously blocked, and unblocked earlier. Has continued to vandalise and is removing the AIV reprort. [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]]^{[[User talk:Flyguy649|talk]]}[[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|_contribs]] 05:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)