OK. My final inclination is (1) a one-day block for disruption and (2) a three-week ban from the pages mentioned above and their talk pages. The ban is shortened slightly in light of the comments of Tom and Guy. It seems to me, however, that it is the ArbComm remedy that must be our guide: it says he can be "banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing". The disruption is mentioned by several and is clear; there is clear aggressiveness in the "gaming" that Peter mentions; bias is obvious. The remedy calls for bans from articles, which will have the added advantage of removing, hopefully, some of the divisiveness on the affected pages. I am going to wait a few hours before imposing this. If an admin suggests a change, can I ask that you propose a very specific one either on the remedy and/or its length. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font><b><font color="green">ets</font></b><font color="grey"><b>ofg</b></font>]] 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. My final inclination is (1) a one-day block for disruption and (2) a three-week ban from the pages mentioned above and their talk pages. The ban is shortened slightly in light of the comments of Tom and Guy. It seems to me, however, that it is the ArbComm remedy that must be our guide: it says he can be "banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing". The disruption is mentioned by several and is clear; there is clear aggressiveness in the "gaming" that Peter mentions; bias is obvious. The remedy calls for bans from articles, which will have the added advantage of removing, hopefully, some of the divisiveness on the affected pages. I am going to wait a few hours before imposing this. If an admin suggests a change, can I ask that you propose a very specific one either on the remedy and/or its length. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font><b><font color="green">ets</font></b><font color="grey"><b>ofg</b></font>]] 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*I have now imposed the settlement discussed above. Thanks for your input. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font><b><font color="green">ets</font></b><font color="grey"><b>ofg</b></font>]] 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Very confused. Skookum1 has been here since 2005, has over 12000 edits, contributions to FA, images, etc. The other user RascalPatrol is a SPA for all intents and purposes, with all but a very few of his less than 50 edits being to the article that lead to this dispute. An indefinate block seems very strong for a legal threat, especially with no warnings or the like. I can't how WP:BLOCK or WP:LEGAL supports this at all. --ElaragirlTalk|Count20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through that, and it is not clear at all that this was a legal threat. A legal threat is something like "I'm going to sue you." or "I'm asking the cops to arrest you." but saying that "My lawyer friend thinks this will be very interesting to the court." is a passive observation of consequences, not an affirmative statement that you are planning to ake any action. So, where is the bar drawn? --BenBurch21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the parts of WP:LEGAL about taking it to private email and not thrashing it out here? The parts about how legal threats are used to intimidate others so as to get your way on articles or disputes? Isn't that exactly what this edit was? User:Zoe|(talk)21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly a legal threat, and certainly block-worthy. I'm kind of undecided about whether an indef was appropriate for a user with what seems to be a decent contribs history. Any previous editorial malpractice from this user pre-block? MoreschiDeletion!21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It was definitely a passive-aggressive legal threat, but I think that in this particular case, a stern warning and a shortening of the block is in order, unless there have been prior issues. —bbatsell¿?21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall asking if it was a legal threat. I seem to recall asking what specific part of the policy on blocking or legal threats calls for banning a longterm contributor in good standing indefinitely. I understand that a block for a legal threat CAN be placed without warning, although NPA6 exists just for that. But I am concerned at the definition of "serious legal threat", which is unnecessarily vague. Is this basis enough for an indef block on a longterm contributor in a conflict with a SPA? --ElaragirlTalk|Count21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See this from WP:BLOCK: "Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user may be blocked without warning. If a warning is desirable, the {{npa6}} template can be used. Users that make severe threats can be blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats for more information." - that would seem pretty clear. On balance I agree with Bbatsell about the correct course of action to take. MoreschiDeletion!21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It has been the case that users are indef-blocked for legal threats for as long as I can remember. If that's not clear in the policies, then perhaps it should be. —bbatsell¿?21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not clear in the policies. "Serious" legal threats? In this particular context, there isn't a "serious legal threat". There is an assertional stance that a lawyer outside the bounds of an actual court or any precedent of law found something interesting. If indef blocking is the de facto standard, then it needs to be clearly spelled out. As it stands, WP:Legal gives no clear idea of what a legal threat actually is, a point I find astonishing. A legal threat is a warning or statement that if you do or don't do this, person will conduct legal action. If we're using the MeatBall:LegalThreat definition, that should be said...but the policy states that users may be blocked, not are always blocked, and that only severe threats warrant indef bans. We should act to clarify the language. --ElaragirlTalk|Count23:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a week off, perhaps, will do this user no harm? Legal threats like that are unacceptable but I do feel that a user with a good contribs history having a row with an SPA should have one more chance. MoreschiDeletion!21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum1 has contacted me by email (his emails are as aggressive as his editing style), and I suggested that if he explains on his Talk page that he retracts his legal threat, I will unblock him. User:Zoe|(talk)00:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. The typical way that blocks for legal threats are done, in my experience at least, is that the user will remain blocked indefinitely while the legal threats are outstanding. Express withdrawal of the threats will typically lead to unblocking. --bainer (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this before, I trust Zoe. I just think the policy should be more explicit so that people will understand they cannot do stupid things of this nature. --ElaragirlTalk|Count01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that Skookum1 made a legal threat. He threatened to report a person's behaviour to an organization that the person belongs to. In this case, the organization happens to be the Law Society of Upper Canada. This does not seem to be much different from threatening to report a physician's behaviour to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. You could call it a threat, but it's a stretch to call it a legal threat. Kla'quot03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to call one's employer if an editor doesn't like somebody else's editing is as egregious a fault as threathening legal action against them. User:Zoe|(talk)08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Law Society of Upper Canada isn't the person's employer either; it is a regulatory body. Given the diff, I'm not even sure if I would say any action was being explicitly threatened. I'm not saying whether the block was right or wrong, but I think it's important that the reason be better-articulated so that the user can sincerely acknowledge that he did it and won't do it again. Kla'quot09:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; this was clearly not a legal threat. It seems to me that User:Zoe saw the word "Law" and (mis)interpreted it without regard to its context. I oppose this block and think it should be rescinded, or at the very least reduced to a fixed duration. —Psychonaut21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to report any editor for on-wiki activities to an off-wiki authority is simply beyomd the pale unless the activitives have been illegal and it's the Police you are bringing in. Anything else is wholly unacceptable and completely blockworthy until such times as the threat is rescinded. Spartaz13:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the de facto policy, the written policies need to be clarified. No personal attacks says that "Extreme attacks, in particular legal threats and death threats, can be dealt with by blocking the offending user without warning." I don't see Skookum1's comment as falling into the category of an extreme attack. As some readers of Skookum1's statement think it contained a threat and others don't, it may be best to treat the situation as a misunderstanding. If Skookum1 can promise that he won't be reporting anyone's on-wiki activities to an off-wiki authority, I'd consider the problem solved. Kla'quot19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite block of a contributor likely to be helpful to Wikipedia is less likely to help than harm Wikipedia. Perhaps a 2 week block would be more productive? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the block was warranted, but I oppose the indefinite length, due to the lack of clarity as far as the legal threat. A long block maybe, but indef seems rather harsh. --Wildnox(talk)06:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(comment by non-Sysop) Block endorsed - but the time limit should be shortened to a couple of months, unless he recieved previous warnings. Iced Kola22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you have got to be kidding! If I had a dime for everytime someone "attacked" me as was supposedly done by Giano in the instance you have cited, well, I'd have a lot of dimes, let's just put it that way. Let's be absolutely sure that NPA and civility blocks are completely clear cut when blocking established editors in the future. I can't even see a reason that the example you reference would be qualifing grounds for blocking a troll.--MONGO23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing this block, and Giano's history, I don't think this was likely to be an effective block (from the standpoint of reducing overall drama and increasing overall effectiveness). There has to be a better way to get Giano to be more than just a valuable article writer, to instead be a welcome part of our entire community. Warning for PA, and blocking for PA, just don't work with Giano. I therefore decided to unblock. I expect that will not be a popular view among everyone but I think we really need to try other measures. If I am overturned, so be it but that's my view. ++Lar: t/c22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lar, very astute of you to spot it so quickly, and thank you too "little-admin-with-the-funny-unpronouncable-name" for giving my edit publicity I could never have dreamt of. However, I doubt poor Doc will be so grateful to you. Relax the rest of you "little-admin-with-the-funny-unpronouncable-name" was not part of an IRC plot, just another of those who should never have been promoted and let loose on the rest of us, ignore him, don't give him too much of a hard time, blame those who voted for him. Giano23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't quite the response I was hoping for. It just gives fuel to people who say bad things about you, Giano. I've reached out to you privately as well. I speak for many, I think, whey I say I really would like to find a way for you to be a positive contributor again... but attacking Naconkantari is not the way to do it. ++Lar: t/c23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you are asking. I have no criticism of lar's action. I contemplated doing it myself for the sake of the project, but decided I'd stay out of it.--Docg23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the to-me-near-indecipherable post above, I'd have hesitated to issue a block on that initial snark. The bits of the post above I do understand, however, are very nearly blockworthy in my opinion. - brenneman23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, wiki pages are a written medium. You don't need to be able to pronounce someone's name in order to spell it, especially when it's written in front of you. (I don't know whether you pronounce your name Gee-ar-no or Gy-ann-o, but I don't need to in order to communicate politely). Referring to someone as "little-admin-with-the-funny-unpronouncable-name", especially when you've just been blocked for making personal attacks, seems to me a very bad idea – Gurch23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that last comment from Giano was in itself incivil and yet another block-worthy personal attack. Does this have to go on? There are better ways to discuss things and sort out problems. MoreschiDeletion!23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse re-block. Giano, I think highly of you and your contributions, but please keep your discourse civil. Snarkiness and off-the-cuff commentary meant to offend others isn't helping build an encyclopedia -- Samir धर्म23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I misread Brenneman's posting in that you were not re-blocked, but my intent is the same. Please cool it with the comments, Giano. -- Samir धर्म23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no comment block itself. (Although for the record, I have not been party to, nor aware of, any pre-block discussions.) However, I think there are real problems here. Lar is right, blocking Giano is counter-productive: it neither causes Giano to halt the incessant incivility, nor does it reduce the general wikidrama. I blocked him several months ago (as a then uninvolved admin) and learned that lesson the hard way. That's why I asked Jimbo to unblock him the other day, However, there is another problem that is increasing tension: that is the general perception that Giano is getting special treatment. He is incivil and aggressive, but every time he is blocked a number of users point out the (no doubt also real) problems with the blockers, the medium and the discussion, and do anything rather than say that Giano needs to knock it off. (Sure IRC can be a problem. Perhaps the exact thing that Giano is blocked for isn't quite right. But there IS also undeniably a huge problem with his behaviour - just go through his edits and look!). Personally, we really need to move on from here. We need people to stop blocking Giano, and stop provoking him (and, yes, he has sometimes been trolled). But we also need him to stop provoking them - and stop spoiling for a fight (why on earth was he on my talk page today, I've stayed clear of his for weeks??). Please, rather than fly at the other side, can Giano's friends try to influence him for the best? And can those who are seen as 'opposing him', please knock it off. The only other end-game here is that the temperature rises until someone leaves or gets banned. I, for one, don't want that. Let's all try to de-escalate this thing whilst we can. I'm willing to work with anyone who's willing to see wrong on all sides.--Docg23:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once more: is everyone sniffing glue? (Note: that's a question.) Am I around the largest single group of computer-connected blushing violets in the world? Your responses to someone being catty are to block? You must be joking or ... or... invoking-standards-you-don't-believe-because-you-are-upset (there: I avoided maligning anyone). Cyde has been absolutely horrible to me. Kelly has been to me. Some of you have been. Life goes on. Do you support censorship of television, too, so that there are no scenes that could be upsetting? If you want Wikipedia to have a society and community of editors, then that means having one where people are occasionally snippy, occasionally unpleasant. No, you don't get to block them for that. Please, please, please read WP:NPA. In "extreme cases" a block might issue. An extreme case, is, oh, an adenoidal 16 year old writing, "You are a child molestor" someplace permanent. It is not, "You have an unpronouncable name" (which isn't even a personal attack in the first place) or "I don't expect Doc to understand not talking behind peoples' backs." The standard you are all applying would have nearly every one of you yourselves already blocked for things you have said in the past. You may not like Giano, but don't sniff glue and propose standards you have no interest in. Geogre14:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I neither endorse nor condone any of the blocks of Giano, except the 3-hour block for spamming logs, which I think was acceptable (though is not a step I would have taken myself). Since Giano appears to be leaving anyway, I feel the indefinite block current in place is probably unnecessary; however, I don't think it's hindering anything productive either, so I do not wish to question it. And no, I am not sniffing glue – Gurch15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question on the "camps"
Does anyone see me as being in either camp here? Because having stayed mostly out of this, and being happy to say that I respect people on either !side of the debate, I'm "neutral enough" I think. - brenneman23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you as a neutral party, though I'm not sure how much that counts for. I didn't consider myself to be in a "camp", either, but Giano appears adamant that I'm on the opposite side of the debate to him (given his claims and reply to my subsequent explanation and question) – Gurch23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you around, and you generally seem pretty reasonable. As far as this discussion, you're an unknown quantity, in my memory, which seems to imply that you're neutral, although objectively I have to admit that's hardly an absolute proof. Luna Santin23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now what do you suppose Cyde meant here [1] just before I was blocked? The IRC admin gang want me banned, not blocked, banned. Kelly Martin is saying openly on IRC she wants to start a book on when - not if. I'm afraid half of you haven't a clue what is going on here, and the half that do are keeping very quiet indeed. Giano00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, any chance you could stay off Cyde's talk page, (I've already asked him to reciprocate). You may find it difficult to assume I'm acting in good faith here, but I really really do want this to de-escalate. Any help you could give would be most appreciated. --Docg00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin, I use IRC, and Cyde does not speak for me. Kelly Martin does not speak for me. Personally, I think it would be a damned shame if you were blocked -- you've offered a lot to the encyclopedia, and I hope that you continue to do so. That said, I am disappointed in a number of people, and I wish we could all put a little more effort towards working together to get past this and keep going in this group endeavor. Luna Santin00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, right, that's probably enough for me to qualify as not being in the supposed "anti-Giano" camp given my reply to that post. Can I take it as read that my previous interactions with Cyde and Kelly are well known, and that there can be no accusations of mateship there? By anyone I mean, not just Giano? - brenneman00:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No to be honest I know nothing about you, unless people come stomping onto my talk page first, I rarely have interaction with anyone. People have to seek me out first as a rule. Giano00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been to the admin channel, so I don't know if there's any kind of conspiracy going on there or not. But I do see that Giano is uncivil, and that is, obviously, not helping the whole situation. So please, be a bit more friendly, even to those yo do not like. --Conti|✉00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole problem is that those who frequent IRC are very uncivil there about many including me. This thing is about double standards, lying and cheating by the same people who come here and pontificate and then plot behind our backs. Giano00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that you could establish that some people have done that. But I assert again, I am an individual, and these people do not speak for me. When have I done any of these things you just mentioned? Luna Santin00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many just sit there and don't question the behaviour they witness. Why for instance have you never questioned Kelly Martin's presence there? Giano00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I haven't felt any pressing need to. In the course of my work on the wiki, I focus on a few main tasks: recent changes patrol, unblock requests, maintaining WP:PAIN, occasional attempts at resolving disputes, this one included, and trying to do my part to make sure that the admin backlog doesn't get too far down the tubes. I do not claim to be the Savior of All Great Justice on the Wiki -- quite to the contrary, I do my part, and I rely on others to do theirs. This is a collaborative project, and that means that I must sometimes collaborate with people I won't always agree with. Luna Santin01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead by example. "They're doing it, too!" might be true, but it's still not a good reason to behave that way. If you are civil, people won't be able to complain about your incivility anymore and will hopefully spend their time on the actual discussion about what you are complaining. --Conti|✉00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reset indentOk, wait, stay on target. Almost there. I'm not going to deny that there are issues around IRC, but I'd like to focus on just one thing. I'd like to get general consensus on perceptions of incivilty, blocking, camps, etc. While I've been accused of being camp plenty of times, the only time I've been said to have "cronies" were those who've not been called "facilitators of incivilty" or somesuch. I'd like to get handed the nuclear football, and hold the block switch on Giano. Err, II. Whatever. The number of blocks I've handed out to established users is pretty thin and since I've been warned by arbcom about my own civilty there's little chance I can be accused of being thin-skinned. So, any objections? That for the time being at least nobody else bollocks or unbollocks the G-man? - brenneman00:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until now I had respected Naconkantari as a one-man anti-vandal army and one of the good guys. I strongly endorsed his Rfa, even though I believe we need more writers at the helm than vandal thwackers. Now I see him make a highly questionable block of a highly regarded writer, who has been subjected to an obvious campaign of harassment in an apparently sucessful attempt to drive him away. The actions of Chairboy and his like really don't surprise or disappoint me...they are merely pageboys with ambitions above their proper station. But you, Nacon, were a knight in the eyes of many! It saddens me to again see power, especially petty power, corrupt a once noble and productive Wikipedian. I can now count the number of admins I have any regard for on a single hand. My disgruntlement turns into disgust and disillusionment.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the one side, we have people who won't let go of hurtful feelings. On the other side, we have other people who won't let go of their own hurtful feelings. On the gripping side, we seem to have Gurch. Luna Santin00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Luna Santin, it would seem. I suppose I ought to clarify my (our?) position: I have no problem with, and fully support the continued existence of, an administrator-only IRC channel to which access is restricted to trusted users. I have used the administrator-only IRC channel in the past and found it to be very useful. I do not endorse the activities, past and current, of certain users (not everyone) who frequently use this channel. I am concerned by the lack of civility displayed by certain users on both "sides" of the debate. I recognize the issues that this causes and the need to remedy them – and I will accept changes to the way in which the channel works in order to achieve this, including but not limited to the introduction of public logging if necessary. However, I do not believe that the channel should be removed altogether, as I believe that such a move would impact those who use it in a legitimate and productive manner – Gurch00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I can add a few words, I really hope nobody will be taken by the whim to reblock Giano, as if this really would solve anything. To begin with, I'm quite shocked with the block by Naconkantari; it almost seems to me, and I'm really sad to have to say this, that there is a sort of impulse to block good editors, while blatantly uncivil and pov-pushing editors are completely ignored, and this explains why the talk pages of many articles have fulled themselves with tons of hate speech. Giano may have a difficult character, but he's perfectly capable of collaborating in bettering articles, which is, IMO, the only thing that wikipedia exists for. All this speaking of blocks hasn't done anything in easying relations in the community; quite the contrary. May I give a small piece of advice? Lets cut it here, and start editing - after all, shouldn't it be our chief occupation. I hope I haven't offended anybody with this message; if I did, I can only say it wasn't my intention, and I'm sorry. Ciao, --Aldux01:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving this conversation now, not just because it is way past my bedtime, but because until we can openly publish the IRC logs proving once and for all the disgusting behaviour or "IRCadmins" leading editors further debate here is futile. But if people think I am uncivil they are going to be very shocked when the logs come out. Giano00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many just sit there and don't question the behaviour they witness. Why for instance have you never questioned Kelly Martin's presence there? Giano00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giano posted this in the previous section, but I'm copying it here as I feel I should address it here.
As I say above, I do not endorse the activities, past and current, of certain users of the administrator-only IRC channel. I have not responded to these activities before now primarily because of a desire to stay uninvolved with such things, remain uncontroversial, and avoid stirring up conflict where none exists. I am presenting my opinion now in response to the conflict that has arisen, as I feel that at this point I should at least attempt to engage in discussion. I have argued a number of points, outlined my experience with the issue and made my position quite clear above. I don't intend to talk extensively about individual people unless they approach me first. However, as far as Kelly Martin is concerned, I have already said that I don't endorse some of her actions. When I first used the channel, Kelly Martin was an administrator with whom I had no previous contact; I certainly saw no reason to question anything at that point. Had I been particularly eager to participate in a dispute, I may well have chosen to question that and many other things at the same time as I decided that use of the IRC channel was no longer a good idea – at 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC). However, I did not; I decided to stay away from the situation, and I do not regret doing so – Gurch00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Giano has just announced his departure ([3]), after ArbCom announced a new civility parole remedy ([4]). As an uninvolved editor, the whole thing is a shame, but in the end, no matter how valuable an editor somebody is, they still have to play by the rules. The rules are flexible to a degree - productivity counts, circumstances such as prior baiting count - but one can't continually and flagrantly violate them again and again without eventually having to face the consequences. And regarding the role of admins in this and other cases - without naming names, I will say from personal experience that admins who 'adopt' users and defend them to the bitter end are doing just as much a disservice as those who will cut a user no slack at all. - Merzbow01:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly stayed out of the last couple of rounds of all of this as well, if only because I said pretty much everything I had to say in September and October and found myself fresh out of ideas. My compliments to those, such as Luna Santin and Gurch and Brenneman, who tried to buffer the situation and develop common ground. Newyorkbrad01:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I confess it took me a while to tumble to the fact that this whole thing had to end with de-escalation or bust. But kudos to those who never lost sight of that. Unfortunately, it looks like 'bust' though. Oh, well. That's honestly a pity.--Docg01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to stay out of this discussion, but I cannot. I don't know if this is still an ongoing discussion, but I want to express my opinion and voice myself. I believe that the reblocking of Giano was a characteristic expression of abuse of power. I endorse Aldux who asks here anybody to show a little more respect for the great editors of Wikipedia and let them do what they now best: edit! I think that actions like Giano's reblocking for a minor reason (I have difficulty to qualify his wording as a PA) achieve only one think: to make Wikipedia poorer and to deprive it of the persons who can make it richer. Thanks!--Yannismarou19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on IRC
Officially we are told that the 'Wikipedia' IRC channels are considered to be 'off Wikipedia', outside the control of ArbCom, and actions there thus not subject to results here (and vice versa). So... theoretically someone on IRC could call a Wikipedia user every manner of foul thing, give out their real life name and address, and openly hold a discussion about how best to murder them... and no action could be taken against their account on Wikipedia itself (though hopefully someone would at least notify the police). Correct? Yet... paradoxically, if someone took a log of any IRC discussion and publicly posted it on their equally 'off Wikipedia' web-site their account could then be banned. Is it me or is there a logical contradiction here?
I have in the past seen an admin chortling on IRC about how he just blocked a "douche" for being incivil to him... seemingly oblivious to the irony. This, and the fact that incidents like it happened nearly every time I opened the channel, is why I no longer use IRC and never asked for an invite when the admin channel was created. Now we are hearing (admittedly disputed) accounts of things which seem like incivility, failure to assume good faith, turning Wikipedia into a battleground, et cetera in reference to the admin channel. Are there standards of behaviour for the IRC channels? If so, where are they documented? Or do we really have a situation where users on Wikipedia are required to abide by all these behavioural niceties or be blocked... but admins are free to toss civility and cooperative fairness to the wind on an IRC channel where the only action forbidden is revealing what went on there?
Personally, I think that anything openly discussed in IRC or an outside web-site ought to be treated exactly as if it had taken place on Wikipedia... it is the same community and pretending to a fictional separation between 'PhilbertWikipedia' and 'PhilbertIRC' doesn't change that. If there are disputes about what was really said (no log available) or the actual identity of the person saying it then that can (and should) be excluded, but otherwise there seems no reason to create this dichotomy where 'on Wikipedia actions' are discussed and coordinated free from any sort of 'on Wikipedia consequences'. Failing that, IRC participants should be held to the same standards of behaviour as on Wikipedia... you make personal attacks, start planning how to 'get' someone, or call for 'vote stacking' on IRC then you get blocked from using the IRC channels just as you'd be blocked from Wikipedia if doing so there. If we are going to continue this 'separation' then the two areas should at least require the same standards of behaviour to be allowed to participate. Otherwise we create a situation where 'IRC users' can (and do) behave in fairly despicable ways and 'Wikipedia users' can (and just did) get blocked for anything which looks like it might be a civility violation if they get mad about it. Its inherently a double standard and it is wrong. --CBD15:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was never comfortable with the notion that off-Wiki behavior doesn't count. There are problems with identifying who's who and gathering decent evidence though. He said, she said might be acceptable for government work, but we are used to having logged evidence of who did what and when. I would never want to see the door opened to trumped up charges. Fred Bauder15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually in agreement. It never made sense to me that someone's posts on Wikipedia Review didn't have real consequences in here, especially when those posts were really vicious. Oftentimes, we have the problem of identifying who is who, but a lot of people have admitted both here and there that, say, "Yalej" on Wikipedia is "Yalej" on Wikipedia Review. Actually, this has started to change. We've already seen Everyking lose his sysop bit over something he said on Wikipedia Review, and I think we're headed down the path of being held accountable for all actions that can be proven. "That can be proven" is the hard part, though. If it is something said in the #admins channel and a dozen people have logs, then yes, it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but, if it is something said in private correspondence, either email or IRC PM, there's really no way to prove it unless the person has been signing their statements with PGP. I could see #admins logs being used (privately) by arbitrators (although posting them here for everyone to see would be a big no-no), but, I could never see private conversations being used, as those are utterly too easy to fake. --Cyde Weys15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And the range of private communication methods available means that this fact that isn't limited to IRC or even to the Internet. Records of private communication between two people (one of which is not yourself) supplied by one of those people should never be fully trusted in any situation (even if both parties agree that the records are correct) – Gurch20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be joining Emmanuel Goldstein then, as this conversation is moving to policing thoughtcrime. Big Brother may be watching me, but my private conversations are private regardless of where I hold them. Am I now accountable to Wikipedia for what I tell my mother? The #wikipedia channel is 245 people at present; this doesn't qualify as private, and I wouldn't oppose people being held accountable for death threats, posting private information, etc there (although they would be kickbanned from the channel anyhow). #wikipedia-en-admins might be similar, might not be. Regardless, what people say in PM or in email is their own business and should be left that way. --Keitei(talk)15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I misunderstand what you're saying, but evidently one of us is somehow confused by the indenting, and/or you haven't read my comment below. My above comment is in reply to Cyde, not Fred Bauder or CBD. My comment is intended to flow from the last sentence of Cyde's comment. Please read them together. Cyde says that he "I could never see private conversations being used, as those are utterly too easy to fake", and I am agreeing with him and elaborating on the notion that conversations between two people can never be trusted. In other words I am asserting, for that reason and others, that the idea of accountability for a user's actions cannot be applied to a private conversation. Cyde asserted the same thing. So we are in agreement with you, yet you indented your reply below mine; if your comment is directed at someone else I'd appreciate it if you could make that a little more clear. Thanks – Gurch20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could be completely misunderstanding, but Cyde's comment sounds to me like "private conversations can be easily faked and that's a shame", implying that if they weren't so unreliable, we'd want to hold people accountable for them. Your comment seemed to follow from that, that they can't be trusted and that's a shame (though that idea isn't really as implicit). Anyhow, my point wherever the indenting is: even if we could reliably prove what's said in private conversations, we shouldn't and shouldn't want to... Private conversations are private... I discuss Wikipedia with my mother, but it's not anybody's business but hers and mine what I say. All this "OMG PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WIKIPEDIA IN IRC" seems to be heading in a very thinkpol direction. (So perhaps I'm not addressing anyone in particular, just the desire to unearth all IRC logs we can muster, whether we should or not. :]) --Keitei(talk)22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shall state it once more, then; the idea of accountability for a user's actions cannot be applied to a private conversation and I do not wish for it.
With regard to "unearthing" logs, I am of course completely against that and don't even understand why it is being discussed. I have no problem with introducing new rules to the channel which specify that conversations will be publically logged, or logged in a secure location accessible only to a certain group of people (e.g. ArbCom, or all administrators); I won't discuss the merits or drawbacks of such options now. But when I used that channel I did so on the understanding that conversations were not publically logged, as I'm sure many other uninvolved people have done. I may have made statements there which I do not wish to be available to the Internet in general. (And no, I'm not talking about a conspiracy to bring down Wikipedia, or whatever it is). If you look further up (and down) this page, you'll find other statements to this effect. I may possibly accept a review of channel logs by, say, the Arbitration Committee (though right now I'm disinclined to trust them with anything for various reasons), but public release of logs is a violation of privacy – Gurch23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(From the next section):
Whilst we could agree that logs should be published, or widely available, in future, I would take strong objection to any retrospective change. I've chatted personally, and given some details of my family on IRC. I did that on the understanding that a few dozen people might overhear. But the notion that the logs of such conversations might be published on the open web, or given to people not party to the conversation is an horrific invasion of privacy. (– Doc glasgow)
Oh, heck no. Watch what you guys have done. CBD proposed that there be some accountability for malicious behavior on "Wikipedia" IRC channels, Fred said "off-wiki" actions should be accountable, and now Cyde is eagerly agreeing that behavior on outside websites be under scrutiny. The first part is fine, if we have accountability for the accountability (logs) or a guideline on Wikipedia in advance. The second part is utter nonsense and just another way to validate user hunters. Geogre14:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment refers only to the IRC-channel-related discussion. I have no interest in policy, of lack of policy, regarding behaviour on off-wiki websites, since I don't discuss Wikipedia on off-wiki websites. I would not object to attempts to make off-wiki actions accountable, but nor do I endorse them. I do support a change in IRC channel rules if others judge it to be necessary – Gurch14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, me too. I've been working on the issue for a while, now. However, this was one of those games of rhetorical "telephone" where people were going to start with a valid premise and then, frankly IRC-style, end up at a complete non sequitur. No, we should not be blocking people for their actions at Wikipedia Review, or WikiTruth, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or their blogs, or LiveJournal, or e-mail, or wherever and whatever else they do. To even think so is nuts, and it appears that Cyde would have it. We can only have accountability for IRC (in either sense -- as a rationale for a positive action or as a rationale for an injunction) if we have logs with solid integrity or ops who will always act consistently in enforcing a set of guidelines of behavior. We have neither. Geogre15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, actually Cyde (and Fred) did not misconstrue me. I was talking about outside websites too. If this makes me "nuts" then so be it. To take an example 'from the other side'... I recall that Kelly Martin wrote something on an 'off Wiki' website which had people up in arms a while back. That wasn't on Wikipedia and or a 'Wikipedia affiliated' site (IRC channel or whatever)... but there was no question that it was Kelly. Should it really therefor be treated as 'separate'? Can people just 'hop over the wall' and break any Wikipedia rule they like... knowing that it is going to have the same impact as if done ON Wikipedia, but is now 'shielded'? Had Kelly been (to take the absurd example again) talking about killing another Wikipedian would it really make sense to say, 'Nope... no action can be taken on Wikipedia since this happened elsewhere'? You are absolutely correct about the dangers of this being abused to go 'hunting' for connections between 'WikipedianA' and 'OffWikipedianB'... but I think that can be prevented by disallowing such sleuthing entirely. In short, unless the Wikipedia account has identified the off Wikipedia account/text as being their creation it can't be used against them. Short of that it could never really be proven and is far too open to abuse... e.g. someone could go to MySpace right now and create a 'CBDunkerson' account and pretend to be me. That's probably the biggest reason this 'wall' exists, but there are plenty of cases where identity IS known with certainty. The invite only IRC admin channel being probably the clearest example. Even then the authenticity of the text would be an issue too... if there were only two users on the IRC channel (or they opened a private channel / conversed in e-mail / talked on the phone / et cetera) then there is no way to prove what was really said if they have different stories/logs/copies/whatever... but if their accounts match or there are a dozen matching 'witness statements' then that ought to be treated as fact. --CBD19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CBD, my objection to Kelly's blog was not that she had it, although I find that twisted, personally, since I can't imagine blogging about my web actions, but to its inclusion into Wikipedia deliberations. I.e. if someone goes off to MySpace and pretends to be you, it's kind of irrelevant to us, unless that translates. We have control over ourselves, but we can't get into the game of determining who is the "real" person or the first person, or the anonymous person, etc. If we do that, we go crazier sooner. Geogre23:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IRC logs, enough already
Perhaps a righteous and humane admin (or five) will simply post them. If any "good" admins have nothing to hide, they'll have nothing to fear. UsagiYoTruthBo16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nothing to fear except a ban from IRC for posting channel logs, which as of this moment is (as far as I am aware) still a rule for that channel. Perhaps people don't want the hassle of having to deal with that? I have logs from a few months back myself, but so far all accusations I have heard that mention a specific date refer to periods that I do not have any record of, mainly periods within the last two weeks (I stopped using IRC December 6, anticipating that something like this would come up); so even if I were to post anything, it would apparently demonstrate little. I imagine there are others in the same situation – Gurch18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst we could agree that logs should be published, or widely available, in future, I would take strong objection to any retrospective change. I've chatted personally, and given some details of my family on IRC. I did that on the understanding that a few dozen people might overhear. But the notion that the logs of such conversations might be published on the open web, or given to people not party to the conversation is an horrific invasion of privacy. Change the rules if you must (although I'll probably stop using IRC if you do), but not retrospectively.--Docg19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an important point, and I am inclined to agree. I have probably done similar things myself, though I can't immediately recall any. I will as I stated earlier accept a change of rules in the future if necessary – Gurch20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; there's a stark difference between telling a few dozen people something they'll probably forget and never care to remember, and posting something online where it is publicly searchable and available to the entire world's population. Not that the entire world would care to know, but the difference is there. --Keitei(talk)15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, David Gerrard is treating the publishing of logs as a rationale for a block from Wikipedia. Either that or he is really misreading Giano's comments. Geogre14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think repeatedly spamming pages with content that has already been removed several times, despite being told to stop, is grounds for a temporary block, regardless of the nature of that content. This behaviour could also be considered disruption to illustrate a point – Gurch14:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"14:01, 30 December 2006 David Gerard (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite"
Giano had already been blocked for 3 hours to stop the disruption, and unblocked. Unless he had resumed the posting of the logs, another block was IMHO inappropriate. Regards, Ben Aveling22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yyyyeah, except for the example El C points out where Kelly Martin went to 150 pages last week. Also, except for people who can go to IRC and make an announcement every 5 minutes for an hour and reach many more people. Also, except for the fact that Giano was not randomly "spamming." He was, instead, telling interested parties, which is not talk page spamming at all. (If four authors worked on an FA, and it went to WP:FAR, all four would be contacted. Giano got up to 11.) Yes, Giano was looking for a block. Yes, those who blocked him helped make his anger a Very Big Deal and helped us all go into a knot again. Geogre15:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Kelly Martin's actions to be equally unacceptable. I have no desire to see Giano's channel logs, yet I recieved them anyway. And if any user is "looking for a block", the fact that one was provided can hardly be considered a problem; surely the absence of a block would be worse? – Gurch15:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre: A cursory scan of Kelly's contribs for the last few weeks didn't reveal 150 pages of comments last week (you'd think a cursory scan would be enough to reveal it, I would think), could you (or El_C, if you are reading this) provide a link? Thanks. My question is why is Giano "looking for a block"? Why can't he see the good in others that others see in him? Why does it have to be this way? ++Lar: t/c15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because you folks were ready to explode. You wanted to continue to be hypocritical about things, submit that Giano is the problem, to never admit that the issues are being unaddressed, and because he had decided that you were timorous or small minded, I expect. Guess what the response was: the very worst possible thing: another "Yeah, tough guy, we'll fight you!" block. How dumb do you have to be to try to play playground games like that? The guy edits away nicely, but no...that's not enough...no...every comment has to be watched so that there can be a chance to piss him off. He gets pissed off. Congratulations! How much skill did that take? Take a look at my talk page right now. Should I have blocked Ling Nut for that personal attack, or should I be attacked for my giving as good as I got? Well, what Giano was facing was his own comments getting blocks, while the people insulting him in the first place were just "doing their jobs." Yeah. Well, if we want our volunteers to stop volunteering, that's easily accomplished. That way we can have a WEB FORUM, which is what many of you seem to be on anyway. Geogre18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not sure who 'you folks' are. Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you, or is critical of Giano is part of some overarching cabal. Who is ready to explode? Who is a hypocrit? My take on this is that we have a vicious circle caused by everyone (you and me included) jumping to the barricades to defend our side, and unable to say that there is fault on both sides. One side feels the injustice of the way people are out to 'get giano' and they thus defend him to the hilt, and look for the faults in his critics. The other side feel the injustice of Giano getting special defence and a perceived 'free pass', and they thus looks for ways of convincing the community that something needs to be done about the Giano problem. Oh, we'll disagree about which is the cause and which the effect, but each is feeding the other. Everyone needs to calm down and ask themselves: 'why are intelligent people, who we assume are acting in good-faith, and certainly are committed to this project, feeling the way they do? Why do they perceive the situation to be like that? How can I help to address their perceived concerns, even if I think they are baseless?' If we can do that, perhaps we can get to a place where Giano stops being incivil, and people let him alone. Then in a calmer atmosphere, we might look at some of the perceived structural issues that have got us here. But, while everyone is playing the 'we're the victims' blame game, there is little chance of that.--Docg22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, you outdented so I'm not sure if "because..." was answering my second question or something else. I'll repeat the first one, though. Can you or anyone else kindly give a ref to the 150 pages Kelly Martin went to last week? I just can't find that and would like to look at them to try to understand the impact and relevance. As for "Because..." (whether it was addressed to me or not), I'm with Doc, I'm not sure who "you folks" are either. I certainly don't think I fit your characterisations. I'm going to go back to something Anthere said that resonates for me, though... User:Anthere/Values#Caring_horizon. I commend it to everyone to read and think about. ++Lar: t/c04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference, I know what you refer to now.... as you suspect, your post may get removed purely for lengthiness by me at some point, so here's a diff for reference: [5]. Thanks for sharing it. But I'm not seeing the connection here. Kelly started an RfC on her conduct, and wanted input. She left a very neutrally worded message on the talk page of (I believe) everyone that had voted in her ArbCom candidacy to then, positive or negative, letting them know of the RfC, and soliciting their feedback. I think people do things similar to that all the time. It seems pretty on-wiki and pretty in tune with soliciting input from others and improving ones self (all things you presumably approve of? Or do you prefer off-wiki communication? I'm not quite sure). I'm not sure I see the connection to what Giano did yet, except that both incidents were posts to a number of posts to talk pages. Did Kelly repost things when they were deleted? Did her comments contain excerpts of material that, per WMF policy as I understand it (although I could be wrong about it, I've been told it is WMF policy, not just freenode policy), isn't supposed to be republished? Did the comments contain anything other than a polite request for input? I in fact was thinking of doing that very thing on the meta talk pages of all the voters (including yours, which, strangely, was the tipping vote that sealed my loss, and turned up at 23:59 on the very last day of the vote, when there was no possible way to address whatever concern you had... just out of curiosity, how did you know to turn up then and put in the tipping vote? I looked for on-wiki communication on your talk and didn't see any...) in my recent failed steward candidacy. If I post to everyone's talk page that voted in my steward candidacy politely asking for feedback on what I can do to be a better candidate and more worthy of the post next year, is that behaviour equivalent to what Giano did, in your eyes? ++Lar: t/c05:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, Kelly's request went only to those who had voted 'oppose' (reverse chrono order). It was the first RfC I ever got, and had already left (unanswered) questions on her ArbCom questions page, and a comment with my vote. If it matters, I felt harrassed for my vote. Jd271806:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I placed it there with the expectation you'd do so. My comment was related to excessive duplicate talk page msgs rather than content (in her case, I believe it would have been better it simply note it on the Vote page, Village pump; even AN and ANI would make four and I think would have seen comparable exposure. But, anyway, my point was limited to that area. El_C05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree then that it was an irrelevant comment, insofar as being a guide to how we should view what Giano did? Or perhaps you don't agree, if so could you clarify the relevancy? I'm interested in your input on the other questions I asked you as well. ++Lar: t/c05:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she did end up, partially, using it as a platform to call Geogre a "liar," but that's as much as I wish to discuss the matter at this time. With regards to your candidacy, I was looking at Talk:תרומה לויקיפדיה, which led me to Talk:Translation requests/WMF/Fundraising pages/תרומה לויקיפדיה, which led me to click on recent changes for kicks, which later led me to the election page. By the time I got a chance to read it (later in the day), I suddenly realized time was running short and I barely made it (and had to skip reviewing and !voting on a few candidates to do so). I did not realize it was the tipping !vote. Sorry I didn't have time to comment — it was mostly about your approach to the "anal sex" trolling; it's unlikely you could have persuaded me that, at the very least, you needed more time. There were only ~25 oppose !votes, so I think it's fine to querry all of these at once (but you have a year). El_C06:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Admins, ex-admins in IRC
Why are they allowed? Does that mean that anyone can join? Can I join? If not, why, and why are admins who gave up their bits an inch before the community stripped them of it (Martin, Sidaway) allowed to retain access? UsagiYoTruthBo16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
#wikipedia is open for all, including non-Wikipedia users. The other channels, it is the person who hosts the channel decides who is in or out. But, most of us (including myself) hang out in #wikipedia and the other channels, so if you need to reach us, you can. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ex-admins appear, as far as I can tell, to be allowed because nobody with channel operator access (which is not everyone) decided to remove their access after they requested desysopping. Non-admins appear, again as far as I can tell, to be allowed because one or more admins (or ex-admins) with channel operator access decided to grant them access. I don't know whether you would be granted access, as I can in no way speak for those that have the power to do so. I could try to gauge your possibility of being granted access based on your contribution record, but as this is your only edit with this account, it would seem very likely that you are an established contributor under a different name – possibly even an administrator. So I cannot even do that – Gurch19:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on closer inspection, you appear to have been indefinitely blocked. So I would estimate your chance of being granted access to the channel as zero – Gurch19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is nevertheless the case that Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin are not administrators. If they are "trusted users," then perhaps other "trusted users" should be in en.admins? Who needs to express the trust? Who needs to demonstrate lack of trust? The questions were never answered when the channel came into existence and are still unanswered. Geogre23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, as a follow-up to a note I posted in another thread, Giano has been blocked by Centrx for three hours for spamming IRC logs. See here. Carcharoth01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More information please. I am surprised to see misbehaviour - according to the rules of an unofficial non-wikipedia virtual drinking hole (however misleadingly named) used to justify action on wikipedia? If all he has done is break their rules, then they should take whatever action they think is appropriate in thier forum, not in ours. Regards, Ben Aveling06:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The "bang" is annoying the people he calls IRC fairies who say amazingly nasty things on IRC and then say, on Wikipedia, "Prove I ever said it, and, if you do, I'll block you!" He called the bluff. That's a bang. He was "leaving anyway" because of the moronia of the "Giano on civility parole," which was instigated by the "owner" (I think he indicated that about himself) of the en.admins IRC channel and signed by him and two others who are very protective of en.admins. In other words, it is painfully clear that this is not a "screw you I'm gone" as much as an ongoing argument about en.admins, where three or four non-administrators spend vast amounts of time and even have ops, and the proponents of those people and that channel would rather use their administrative powers against Giano, who is not an admin, than ever, ever, ever debate the issue on Wikipedia. Using that as a rationale for blocking is just more evidence, not any part of any solution. Geogre14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The 'bang' is annoying the people he calls IRC fairies..."
Apparently I should have given more context to that statement. My "I rest my case" was referring to the fact that making actions with the express intent of pissing off another group of editors is textbook disruption, not some potentially abrasive use of the term IRCfairy. If I'd intended that, I would merely have quoted "IRCfairy", rather than the bit about annoying people. --tjstrftalk23:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giano has problems with civility, for which a potential remedy has been proposed. But the block log doesn't mention civility, it describes IRC log spamming. Now that is a rule of the IRC channel, so I highly recommend they block from their channel whoever it was that leaked, if they can work out who it was. But our rules are not their rules and their rules are not our rules. If some of the big kids have a rule that what happens behind the shelter sheds stays behind the shelter sheds, that's their business but it doesn't bind the rest of us, and it doesn't give them permission to take on-wiki action however angry they are. It has been claimed that 'privacy' has some legal protection. (Does that constitute a legal threat? I don't really know and I care less.) I am not a lawyer, but a quick check of a law book seems to make clear that information is confidential only if there is a contract between all concerned parties in place, and if the information is genuinely confidental and if steps have been taken to keep it so. None of those conditions appears to apply here, at least, not as regards Giano. (This may well be different in your juristiction, please consult a real lawyer if you need to.) I don't have all the facts and I could be wrong but it appears on the surface that Giano has been blocked for breaking a rule that we don't have. Regards, Ben Aveling11:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The block is for mass-messaging, apparently in an attempt at a disruptive good-bye, and would be warranted whatever the content of the message. If a user states "I'm through here anyway, but lets have some fun" and then proceeds to post something eleven times despite being told to stop and with no indication that he would stop, the appropriate immediate response is to block the user until such time as he, being reasonable, stops, or until some other decision is made regarding the matter. That the content of the message was an "IRC log" is important only in that the user specifically intended the message to be disruptive. It was not a mass message about multi-licensing contributions or an RfA thanks; it was not a naive user vote canvassing or inserting borderline external links; it was not a malfunctioning script or someone who hastily or accidentally did not see the message about stopping; it was not a chocolate-chip cookie recipe or a Christmas card with a fair use image. There are other reasons why posting what was supposedly the verbatim text of a private conversation is probably wrong, but the solution to a dispute over those reasons is not to then engage in the disputed activity to the extreme, while edit warring and spamming. As far as I can tell, he would have continued to repeatedly post this message, across several pages and on the same pages over again, and he was doing it to be disruptive. —Centrx→talk • 12:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Ignoring posts to his own talk page, I count about 5, not 11, though I agree he probably would have continued. So, hardly a mass message, and they weren't distributed at random. But yes, disruptive, or at least intended to be so. I trust you'll forgive me for assuming you blocked him because of the content? You probably should have dropped a note here once you'd made the block. But otherwise, yes, good call.
OK. For better or worse, the cat's out of the stable door. Does anyone claim the logs, however they've come into our possession, are not a true and accurate representation of things that have been said? And either way, does it matter? #admins is not official. The logs don't seem to contain any admision to have commited any deadly sins on wiki. Only a claim to the ability to do so, but that's hardly the same thing. Absent evidence of foul play on wiki, does anything else need to be done? Regards, Ben Aveling12:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that appears to be a dynamic IP controlled by Comcast Cable. An indefinite block is likely going to hamper other users in the future, once the current user is assigned a different IP address and someone else is assigned their old one. I'd consider scaling the block back to maybe 1-2 months? I'm not sure whether any further action has been taken in past similar incidents, such as contacting the ISP or law enforcement. —bbatsell¿?02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good block; it looks like it may be a dynamic IP, however, in which case there would be little practical difference between 24 hours and indef (which is why we try to avoid indeffing IPs, generally). Might be worth shortening it, with a clear understanding that continued such behavior would lead to an "on-sight" block. WHOIS suggests the IP range in question is 69.240.0.0/12 -- very wide range, so sprotection might be a better option, if they're persistent. Luna Santin02:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We generally don't, that's correct, but there's no technical limitation preventing it at this time. (Open proxies are frequently indeffed as IPs, is about the only example of proper use). Luna Santin02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And with open proxies, the same situation applies. Most of them are not permanently open proxies, and some of them are hacked machines on relatively dynamic IPs. —Centrx→talk • 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's Comcast, you won't have to worry much about the IP changing. As a former Comcast customer, I once had an IP for a year and a half (if not a little more), and if not for the fact that Comcast pulled out of my area, I'd almost certainly still have that IP. jgpTC02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, fair enough. It looked like the IP only had edits for today and back in... May, I think it was. I still prefer "awhile" to "indefinite," with IPs. 24 hours, a week, or some such. If they're not gone by then, it's easy enough to re-block. Luna Santin02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you may have the IP for that long, but if you were to wilfully reset your modem, you would be assigned a new IP. That is, the banned user can, relatively at will, get a new IP. Even supposing that he did not do that, the unlikely 1.5 years is not the same as indefinite and, even if he did not get a new ISP 3 months from now, he will be dynamically assigned a new IP sooner or later. —Centrx→talk • 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from an experienced Comcast usr: Comcast assigns IP addresses to cable modems based on the MAC address of the outward-facing port (Router/Ethernet card). I've reset my modem (And had it force-reset by Comcast) well over 10 times and still have 68.39.174.238. Depending on the user behind this IP, they may have ditched it immediately or they may still be on it. 68.39.174.23819:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MAC address that a router uses can be manipulated. Routers always have a "permanent" MAC address in read-only memory, but they can be programmed to "use" the MAC address of the owner's choice. Same with any Ethernet card - its MAC can be overridden in Device Manager. Reswobslc03:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not block IPs indefinitely. Before doing any sort of long-term block on an IP, you should whois the IP to see what sort of Internet service it has, or at the very least look at the contribs to see how long there have been problems from this IP. A person may be banned indefinitely, but blocking an IP indefinitely does not ban the person indefinitely; it does prevent perfectly innocent people from editing and creates a burden on another admin to investigate and unblock it. —Centrx→talk • 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to all for your comments and for taking care of this. One minor question: My understanding was that "indefinite" blocks were meant for two situations, the first being when there is no plan to ever unblock, and the second being when an admin has not determined how long it should be. Since I did not know how long it should be, I made it indefinite and then asked for discussion here. Am I misunderstanding this? --Samuel Wantman06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's claiming to be his brother/roommate, but I'm not buying it. I blocked Kriminal99 for a week for block evasion and continued threats (see for example [10]). We do not need to put up with this kind of abusive behavior. Antandrus (talk)15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I received two e-mails from him after the block. In the first, he denies being the same person, which I believe is a lie, based on stylistic similarity and completely identical behavior and interests, and then he goes on to wiki-lawyer about his behavior not really constituting making a threat and so forth, which we've heard before on the various talk pages. In the second mail he admits to making personal attacks, although he says he was previously unaware of the policy, and he promises to respect the block, and not make future personal attacks.
If anyone would like to argue for an unblock, or make a suggestion to him as to how he could proceed, feel free to comment either here or on his talk page(s). I'm not going to do it until he explicitly retracts his threats and quits the "it's not really a threat" rhetoric. Thanks, Antandrus (talk)16:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see any reason to unblock him. We are talking about a very disturbed individual who views people disagreeing with him as "use of force" that must be stopped "by any means necessary" and has already demonstrated by both committing the action and writing in defense of it afterwards that yes, he does include 'making people fear for their lives' as a morally acceptable means. Why on Earth would we allow such a person back on Wikipedia? I hope no one's under the impression that he could not find equally vicious means to conduct the persecution he already announced as being justifiable "by any means necessary". If anyone is, I'd like to point out that this is also the user who previously posted as 69.180.7.137 (talk·contribs) and under that IP his antics not only include a similar pattern of personal attacks but also altering another contributor's comments and then falsely accusing them of having altered his comments. The decision is of course not up to me, despite me being the one targeted, but I must say I don't see why we would be looking for terms upon which we can allow this user to return to Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar17:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think there should be zero tolerance for anything like this. I'd like to see this user banned. I wish there was a way to keep the anon blocked as well. --Samuel Wantman02:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More ref desk related drama
user:Light current, ably assisted by user:THB, has managed to engage user:Hipocrite in a revert war at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science over a trollish question that's been deleted and re-added 4 or 5 times by now. I'm sort of in the middle of this (I've been trying to get these editors to peaceably exist in the same universe), but if someone heretofore uninvolved in this could take a look at this mess I'd appreciate it. This is related to the user:Friday situation as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since it looks like there's an asinine edit war going on, I think it does make sense to bring this to administrators' attention. --Cyde Weys04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It answers dozens of questions a day. And the drama will go down, eventually, when we straighten a few things out. I wish there were a quick way to reduce the drama, but I don't see one. -- SCZenz04:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also it provides a gateway to Wikipedia, and an example of what Wikipedia is about; sometimes it could set a better example, of course, but like everything here it's a work in progress. -- SCZenz04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. I suppose it's observational bias: I never noticed when it was bubbling along fine, but the last (weeks? months?) it has been a hotbed of dispute so I do notice. I've just got my grumpy pants on, that's all. - brenneman05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad to see you back, Mr. Grumpy Pants Aaron. ;) --
It doesnt pay for itself . It has no declared purpose. It is completely useless. Its only here cos Larry sanger suggested it. Why not exterminate it. It would save everyone a great deal of trouble and heartache.--Light current00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm inclined to agree. What part of 'building a free encyclopedia' does answering user questions in real time help build? It seems to draw attention away from writing articles, is a vector for trollish and unanswerable questions, and sometimes a way to push POV which would never be acceptable in articles. -- nae'blis16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Aaron and Nae'blis should pay a penalty for opining here, maybe they should have to get involved in the discussion? Really, "what the hell is the ref desk good for anyway?" is a great question—and i think there are some pretty good answers—the more editors asking the better.EricR18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm watching. I just don't have anything productive to add there; RD isn't my forte, and I only recently became aware of the scope of it (in terms of edits and importance to readers). It was about the time of the /Strict experiment, for reference. -- nae'blis19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case it is of use to anyone, here is a squence of diffs that reflects my efforts to chronicle the edit war: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] ([22]), [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Note that Friday and I are involved in removing the question as well as the users Rick named. Note also the edit in perenthesis, which is an essentially uninvolved user apologizing for reverting Friday because he wasn't aware of discussions on the talk page. From my perspective, this question was worth removing, and remained so because the users who were re-adding it were not addressing (or deliberately misinterpreting) the discussion on the talk page about why it should be removed. Do with the information what you will; my goal in adding to this post is really just to save time. -- SCZenz05:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that, personally, I wouldn't take any action on this at all at this time. We're hashing out through the wiki process, and had a bit of a flare-up is all—it's something that happens on pages (even policy!) from time to time, and as far as I can see nobody violated the three-revert rule. I don't see how administrative intervention will particularly improve the situation at the moment, although any suggestions anyone has on the ref desk talk page about how to handle things better in the future might very well be useful. -- SCZenz05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Up to a point. Light current has a history of playing silly buggers at the ref desk, and appears to be deliberately setting out to troll and antagonise, so I'd say a strong warning was in order. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you bloody well mind not calling me a silly bugger Guy? I may not have the highest opinion of you but I dont call you a complete asshole in public do I?--Light current23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should hope you would not, as it would be a personal attack. Whereas Guy didn't call you a silly bugger. He said you have a history of playing silly buggers which is an idiomatic reference to the exact kind of procedural and linguistic manoeuvring that you have displayed in questioning him. It is this sort of retort that is so trying. Rockpocket00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I could say any one was acting like a complete and utter shitty asshole and get away with it? How frigging pathetic this wordplay is. We all know things like this are meant as personal insults.--Light current01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because acting like a complete and utter shitty asshole is not an idiom, playing silly buggers is. Your protest is equivalent to complaining someone is actually calling you a "pot" when if they were to suggest you behaviour was like the pot calling the kettle black. Rockpocket02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that you are clearly a smart, eloquent individual and you are clearly not unfamiliar with British English, this led me to infer that you knew exactly what that phrase means, but used the opportunity to refute his analysis of your behaviour with an insinuated personal attack. (coincidently, this is exactly the same thing other editors inferred of you in the example I provided below) Of course, perhaps I'm overestimating your linguistic skills, in which case I apologise for failing to WP:AGF. But at least now you know now how to distinguish between and idiom and an insult and thus will not fall into the same trap again. So everyone's a winner, right? Rockpocket02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have heard the term. I still find it offensive to be referred to by that idiom. as it implies that I am a silly bugger doesnt it?--Light current02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Light_current#On_offense. "People will always step on your toes (inadvertently). People always step on mine (probably inadvertently). The solution is to get some emotional steel toecap boots!" "Ignore offensive posts. Its the Wiki way yes. I know it can be very hard somtimes to do it but we must try. My offense after all may be your right to say something you believe. 8-)--Light current 22:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
He's correctly using British idiom and, frankly, he's accurately describing your behaviour. Put on your 'emotional steel toecap boots' and listen to what people are saying to you, rather than playing silly word games. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THe bit you quoted is for unintentional (inadvertent) offence that may be caused by general posting, not intentional targeted offence like this. Im sure you can see the difference here.--Light current03:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "targeted offence". You clearly don't understand the meaning of the phrase. An idiom's "meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions and the arrangement of its parts, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through conventional use." You are inferring a literal meaning, not the figurative meaning. Therefore it implies nothing other than that you were behaving in an "annoying way" (something, as TenOfAllTrades notes, appears to be perfectly accurate). Have you considered perhaps instead of obtusely questioning every perceived criticism, instead of deconstructing the minutiae of every argument in an attempt to avoid accepting the glaringly obvious point, actually thinking about why so many experienced Wikipedians express the same concerns about your behaviour? Please, just think about it.Rockpocket05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately previous experience tells me that strong warnings are simply treated as fodder for Light current to make a WP:POINT. The concept of trying the patience of the community appears lost on him (see here for a perfect example). As an aside, my opinion as a occasional RD contributor, is that the biggest problem facing the subproject is the self appointed "RD regulars" that spend their Wikitime there almost exclusively. RD works when editors with a level of specialist knowledge contribute to questions that they have knowledge of. It doesn't work when the certain individuals feel the need to answer every question asked, then when there is nothing current being asked, to ask their own irreverent questions, then - when they are bored of that - by arguing over unneeded policy. If it was simply used for the purpose it was designed, instead of treated like a social forum, it could get back to relative normalcy. How we would enforce that, I have no idea, however. Rant over. Rockpocket22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Im going to be the scapegoat again? Well that is a big surprise (I dont think) 8-((
The trouble with scape goats is that one is never enough. When the problems and misfortunes continue, the elders say we they must find another goat to placate the Heavenly one. Then another is scarificed. Unfortunately the problems still appear. What to do? Ah yes, lets find another scape goat. Surely he will rid us of all the evil editors and crap posts!. And so it goes on. Eventually only the tribe elders are left doing all? the work and praying:
"Oh Lord Where have we gone wrong? We have sacrificed many, many goats in your Name and yet we are still in the shit with our only remaining editor writing whatever he wants to. How can we get them to write only what we want?"
The Lord replied: "Its going to be difficult to get anything written now aint it Dumkopfs? cos you've killed off all the good writers ". And the Lord smiled a knowing smile on the tribe leaders.
Absolutely! I have had a distiguished carreer of over 25000 edits before even happening across the Rds. People ought to take a look at some of 'em 8-)--Light current00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but his behavior contributes to the problems there, and users who stand on the principle of "free speech" above all make it more difficult to keep his behavior from hurting the desk. -- SCZenz00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest sorting out a procedure for removing contentious questions (or even contentious answers) that you can agree on. A good starting point would be that reverting the removal of a question is NOT the right thing to do (that way lies edit warring). Reverting a removal must be discussed first. The reference desk won't collapse if a removed question is not replaced straightaway, and it won't collapse if one poster of a question finds that the question has been removed (if the poster is an established user, make it a requirement to post a note to the user's talk page inviting them to participate in the debate). Then follow a procedure to decide whether the question should be put back, and in what form (maybe modifying the question would help). At the end of the procedure, restore the question/answer or leave it removed. I'll copy this to the ref desk talk page to see if they can agree on using a system like this. Carcharoth02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost right, the start of an edit war is the first unilateral (non-consensus) deletion. The proper procedure is to discuss it first with the author, and then, if the author refuses to remove it and further action is warranted, bring it up at the Ref Desk talk page. If a consensus to delete is reached there, then the post can be removed. StuRat03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just, you know, remove the clearly inappropriate questions without having to go through all of that rigmarole, thus saving everyone's time. Admins are already trusted to use their judgment and delete articles; clearing questions off the reference desk is nothing, and is well within our capability to handle without so much unnecessary process. --Cyde Weys18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what admins have done in the past, and most would continue to do, irrespective of the "proper process" that is now being mooted. The problem lies with when certain editors object to certain other editors removing certain questions. In other words, I believe the crux of the problem is with personality clashes, not with the general issue of removing inappropriate content. Rockpocket21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket has summed it up admirably. To repond to StuRat, I would say that if someone removes a question you think should stay, do not unilaterally revert their removal of the question. Raise the issue on the talk page. That way you would be following your own logic. As soon as you revert their removal, you are descending to the level you profess to be avoiding. If you see a question you don't like, raise it on the talk page. And anyone can use common sense and blank/remove questions, not just admins. Have a look at WP:1RR to see what I mean. The philosophy is that absolutely anyone can remove something, but no-one should restore anything without discussion. Carcharoth01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the restore of a unilateral deletion is not unilateral, because you have both the person who does the restore and the original poster being of the opinion that the material should remain, against the single opinion of the person who first deleted the question. To break it down:
Question is posted: 100% of people whose opinions we know are in favor of the post
Question is deleted: 50% of people whose opinions we know are in favor of the deletion
Question is restored: 67% of people whose opinions we know are in favor of the restore
So you are saying that edit warring is the way to seek consensus, rather than discussion? Edit warring ad infinitum leads to a theoretical end result of 50% in favour of deletion and 50% in favour of restoration. Absolutely pointless. Discuss, do not edit war. If there is disagreement, remove the content, discuss on the talk page and reach agreement, and then implement the result of that agreement. Work with your fellow editors to achieve something of benefit to the readers. Some more reading: Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Carcharoth04:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying just the opposite, that no change should be made unless there are at least more people in favor of the change than opposed to it. This means non-consensus deletions should be avoided, to prevent edit wars. Any deletion should first be discussed on the Ref Desk talk page. StuRat21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talkpage of the now nonexistant article Encyclopedia Dramatica has been recreated even though it recently was found in the deletion review that it was to be kept deleted...[30]. One administrator of this website has posted comments there and surely must, based on his comments, know that the article was deleted and the deletion review upheld that deletion.--MONGO11:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a good-faith effort to determine whether the subject is (or, since its most recent deletion, has become) notable, and therefore deserving of an article. As long as it remains such, then there's no reason the talk page can't continue to exist. —Psychonaut11:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was deleted in the regular course of clearing old protected-deleted pages. Currently, there appears to be a good-faith effort to justify having an article on the topic, though it does not look like it will be successful. Note that deletion review was about the previous deletion of the talk page. It is not a decision to forever forbid the talk page there, and the vast majority of protected-deleted pages do not have protected talk pages. If there are problems on the talk page, they will be removed or the talk page will be deleted and re-protected, but current good-faith commentary about why an article is not or should be included, should not be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 12:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can understand both rationales, however, it has been well less than two months since the deletion review was closed as keep deleted. Seems odd to have any page recreated less than two months after it was DRVed and closed as a keep deleted, tis all.--MONGO12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like we are having a good faith discussion on the talk page. I'm just curious why there would ever be a need to delete and protect a talk page? I mean, delete is one thing, but to delete and protect a talk page? Just seems weird. Smeelgova13:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
There were a few personal attacks on the talkpage and it looked like, with precedent in mind, that the best thing to do was to eliminate the forum in which further harassment would originate from.--MONGO13:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, there aren't any personal attacks going on at the moment, and there won't be from me at least. But at any rate, doesn't just deleting the talk page, and thus the personal attacks, fix that problem? Why the need to delete and protect? Smeelgova13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Technically, the talk page to a non-existent article is not the place to discuss whether there should be a page or not. The proper venue is an RFC. Would someone kindly invite the good faith folks there to create an RFC, and then the talk page can simply redirect (yeah, I know...namespace redirects are an abomination before the Lord) to the RFC. Geogre14:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone deleted and protected the talk page yet again - even though the only thing that was going on at the moment was a good-faith discussion about the notability of certain sourced citations. Oh well. It will be interesting to see how this all progresses in the future. Smeelgova14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The re-creation of articles is, as Template:Deletedpage says, discussed on the talk page and/or Wikipedia:Deletion review. The talk page is the place to bring up new sources, etc., and re-creation at least of anything so controversial as this would be on Deletion review. I don't see what the use of creating an RFC and then redirecting the talk page to it would be; has that ever been done before? —Centrx→talk • 21:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the "one administrator of this website" to whom MONGO alludes above. I certainly knew that the page had been deleted and salted, saw that it was recreated, and since it wasn't being used for trolling or harassment, simply responded to the good-faith comments I saw there, without worrying about why the page was unlocked again.
I'm not saying it shouldn't have been deleted two weeks ago - that was a good call. As for protecting it again, I'm not particularly disagreeing with that, but I would suggest that it could be kept in a better state than with a {{tl}deletedpage}} or {{deletedtalkpage}} template on it. That page ought to have some unambiguous statement that the page cannot be created until such time that the topic is the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. I think that would be the best way to prevent repeated re-awakenings of the "why is this page deleted?" question. Maybe I'll hack up a custom template and see whether people like it. -GTBacchus(talk)21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there was good-faith discussion going on, can someone please undelete, move the discussion, and then redelete the page (which will at that point be a redirect), and inform those involved in the discussion where to carry on their discussion. If there is good-faith discussion going on, it doesn't matter where it is taking place, deleting it is just rude. It is equivalent to someone coming along and ripping up a piece of paper that you were writing a letter on, or pulling the plug as you are writing an e-mail. Carcharoth01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, is New Year's Eve "Coddle The Non-notable Harrassing Trolls Day"? If there's evidence to support recreation, which I sincerely doubt, take it to DRV. Otherwise, we're not spending any more effort on these people, including the effort needed to watch over a troll magnet like this talk page. --Sam Blanning(talk)12:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the use of the page by ED members and others to whine, complain, and generally troll, and without any other use for the page there's no point in us trying to moderate it. Why are we even thinking about it? There are dozens of salted pages which no-one wrings their hands over. Why are we bending over backwards trying to avoid the impression of vindictiveness because we're deleting pages that failed to meet policy, just because the subject was the cause of massive disruption and the premature exit of some of our best editors? Anyway, this is not deletion review, discussion about undeleting a page deleted per policy and previously endorsed belongs there. --Sam Blanning(talk)14:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blanning, I would suggest that the point is harm reduction. There are dozens of salted pages that don't periodically re-erupt into questions about "why is this deleted?" This one does re-erupt, and the point of the explanatory text JzG wrote is to prevent further re-eruptions. If the deletion didn't come across to many as vindictive, we wouldn't have to take steps to demonstrate that it was actually deleted for boring policy reasons. Our job is to prevent drama, and a policy-based explanation, caked in salt, does that better than a simple {{deletedtalkpage}} template. -GTBacchus(talk)19:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think what JzG meant is that you actually deleted an already salted page and salted it again. Nandesukadeleted and salted the page a day before you did, JzG then changed the {{deletedpage}} to an (IMHO) useful explanation of why the page was salted. This was then deleted and salted once more, probably because you didn't realize that it was already a salted page. --Conti|✉17:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the helpful explanation. In the future, I hope that Sam actually bothers to examine the content of a page instead of blindly deleting it and scolding those who complain. —David Levy17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See [31], [32]. I realise he's sincerely upset, and this is certain to be controversial, but when someone with admin powers states directly they're going to disrupt the wiki to "go out with a bang" and "I'm through here anyway, but lets have some fun", it's a block for the protection of the wiki. I can't recall a case of quietly acquiescing to stated intent to disrupt from any editor in the three years I've been here. (Though there are probably examples, please feel free to remind me.)
El C, your comments are verging on disruptive. Please refrain. Remember that Everyking, who was an admin, was eventually banned from posting to Admin pages for repeated bad faith comments on admin processes. User:Zoe|(talk)03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel this way, Zoe. Please do let me know if you if you wish for me to address any particulars. Best wishes, El_C04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, doesn't matter if you're right. What was the context? What is a "bang?" Given that he's just a regular editor, and given that he had already done the bang (posting a log, which would get him banned from IRC), he was speaking of his current action, not future actions. It's not a hard job reading his statements. Also, posting the logs is a violation of Freenode's rules, not ours. The bit about logging and posting logs is not on Wikipedia: it's on IRC. Therefore, Giano was disrupting Freenode and saying that he might as well provoke a storm with his present act. Geogre14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "bang" in question is that mentioned in Giano's reply to me on his own talk page:
No I'm not coming back, I#ll be permabanned by the clique for this, so I thought I'd go out with a bang :-) I've loads more but these just suited the moment, James forrester pretending he did not know why people thought he controlled IRC, see his comment on the arbitration case talk. Oh Dear, they seem to have gone again. Never mind most people have seen them now Giano 23:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Naturally, there were no objections when Kelly Martin copied the same comment on the talk pages of ~150 users last week. El_C14:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about him being an admin, I don't think I'm wrong about stated intent to disrupt. You know that's an instant block for the wiki's sake. Wik was a fantastic contributor and also felt utterly justified when he unleashed our first-ever vandalbot. I'm just wondering how the hell to get him back to sane writing after this. Even GFDL writing somewhere else. Or something. Fundamentally, the whole thing is a massive clusterfuck of the good guys versus the good guys (I include Giano there) - David Gerard14:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much like the Arbitration Committee's latest actions, I do not feel you were being even-handed here, and, as such, you run the risk of coming across as favouring one side in the dispute over the other. El_C14:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the edits and knew there was a clusterfuck and log-posting going on and went "wtf". As noted below I've been reassured he won't vandalise, and I certainly hope he won't log post, and someone's undone the block in any case - David Gerard15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adamantly staying uninvolved in this whole mess, but just for the sake of clarification, the rule against publishing logs is a Wikimedia Foundation policy, not a freenode policy. Freenode's channel guidelines suggest some principles to follow in regards to publishing or not publishing logs, but there's no network policy explicitly permitting or forbidding it; it's up to each channel's contacts. Jdforrester (James_F on freenode), the contact for Wikimedia Foundation channels, established the policy. --Slowking Man14:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was saying that he had more logs, and people could contact him for more. It appears that Jdforrester is the owner of the channel, sort of, which makes his authorship and endorsing of the "Giano on civility parole" even more clearly a case for recusal. I also don't think it's disrupting Wikipedia. It's disrupting IRC usage and annoying its users and continuing this conversation, but what really has this conversation going is more blocking of Giano. What do you folks think would have happened if you had ignored him? What would have happened if you had said, "Dude, that's not helping. Let's talk it through?" What would have happened if people had approached him with discussion rather than templates, blocks, templates, blocks, patronizing, templates, blocks, and paroles? A guy is here for 3 years. In that time, his behavior isn't substantially different from year to year, but suddenly he must be blocked. What happened with that "suddenly" is up to each to determine. Geogre14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing IRC logs to "prove" a cabal conspiracy of some sort is blatantly disruptive to the editing community and thus damages the encyclopedia. Its only effect is to cause drama and ill feeling. EVEN IF HE'S RIGHT. - David Gerard14:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm forming the opinion that banning everyone involved for a month would be an excellent idea to let the rest of us get on with writing an encyclopedia - David Gerard15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Giano promised not to do anything destructive, nor to spam I do not see any reasons to keep this editor blocked. I took my liberty to unblock him Alex Bakharev15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how publishing short logs having no personal information disrupts the work of Wikipedia. On the other hand, ill feeling of an excellent contributor who has somehow founded suspicion about a cabal acting against him certainly disrupt Wiki much stronger than any of his incivility can. Alex Bakharev15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I locked the talk page, I'll now go unlock it. But really, "disruption" includes log spamming. I realise that Giano feels this is the only way for him to get any justice. But it's not going to work and is the fast train to a great big horrible ban this big. Really really. This should be INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO THE MOST CASUAL OBSERVER - David Gerard15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else unlocked it. I have also been reassured by people whose judgement I trust that Giano would not vandalise, and I must apologise for the comparison to Wik above - Wik is a bit of a Hitler example in good-user-gone-sour discussions - David Gerard15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a Hitler comparison, it is a comparison to ad extremum Hitler comparisons, which exactly relevant to Godwin's Law. —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh yes, let's give Giano a good preventive cool-down block. That worked really well last time. It wouldn't have hurt to wait until he had really done something bad, David. I guess I object to this block. dab(𒁳)16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Dab and Yandman. All these blocks are only increasing the nature of the problem. I'm sure you had good intentions David, but it seems more like you've thrown gasoline instead of water on the fire.--Aldux17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, David's suggestion of blocking all involved parties for a month is one of the more even-handed answers to this problem that I've seen. >Radiant<00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I suggested banning (not blocking) everyone involved first! :-) A full 16 hours before David's suggestion. See here. I only suggested two weeks, not a full month, but I did suggest a way to do this. A community ban on the basis that those involved are beginning to try the patience of the community. This would only succeed if the community could (a) agree on who is on this list of "those involved" and (b) no admins would unblock. That last one could be avoided if you implement this as a non-blocking ban. ie. lots of people sign up to a plea for certain people to not edit for two weeks and go on an enforced wikibreak. You could even water it down to a proposal similar to that of Doc Glasgow - just plead with those involved to stay away from each other for the next two weeks. To not post on each other's talk pages, to not run around geting upset, and so on. To just get on with being the productive members of the community we know they can be. If enough people sign up to something like that, it might get through to those involved. Carcharoth01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, it might backfire horribly. Not be a pessimist, but in this case, I lean toward caution over what may well end up being a populist, quick fix solution that fails to achieve appreciable and long lasting resolution, and could even result in further escalation (it certainly has a dramatic flare). But by all means, anyone is free propose any remedy they see fit. El_C02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth, what makes you think we would be able to come up with a definiton of "involved"? Have you an idea in the back of your mind as to who the "involved" parties are? Am I involved, for example? If so, I object for obvious reasons – I have (as far as I am aware) done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing that would warrant a two-week block. Even if not, I can't see even two people agreeing on the same list of "involved" parties, much less everyone – Gurch22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that Jacob Peters is using the IP 69.110.222.228 to evade his block. The IP's contributions are Soviet-related topics, which are what Jacob Peters usually edits, and take a clear pro-Soviet anti-Western POV lining up with Jacob Peters's: [33], [34], [35], [36]. Perhaps most obvious is the use of the not-too-common term "agitprop" [37], which Jacob Peters also uses [38]. The tone of the IP, dismissing his opponents as illogical and spreading propoganda, is also very like Jacob Peters's. I am uncertain if this is a case for checkuser or not, so I thought I would post here and see if someone can help. Heimstern Läufer01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That has basically been Jacob Peters (talk·contribs)'s story. I feel merely resetting the block for the umpteenth time is not working out. I suggest we also extend the block, from four weeks to five (or thirty-three days maybe?). Granted, this may do nothing to stop him from the block evasion, but perhaps he'll realize that in the long run, it's not to his benefit. I'm a bit weary of suggesting an indefinite block, because that will give him no incentive to stop evading the block (and frankly, due to his serial block evasion, I can't picture a time when the current block will be allowed to expire). -- tariqabjotu03:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Returned unlikely. I was actually a bit surprise Essjay went through with that; I don't see what led you to think him and JP were the same person. -- tariqabjotu23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a new admin, I'ld appreciate guidance on policy implementation regarding 2 users who have been revert warring (12 edits between them in a few hours, with 9 reversions). Each has repeatedly reverted the other's changes, but no single change more than 2 times (but 3RR does not entitle people to revert to this limit, just that 3RR is so heinous as to automatically warrant blocking), clearly though both editors should pull away from editing article space and instead have discussed civilly on the talk page, rather than this acrimonious exchange. The article in question is Breast implant, and the 2 users are Jance and Curtis Bledsoe.
Jance has had previous blocks for edit warring on this article under her previous username of User: jgwlaw (deleted at her request when she previously "left" wikipedia) and has been subject of a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance. Curtis Bledsoe has had comments made by a couple of editors on his talk page, advising of disruptive process (repeat reverting, failing to engage on talk page discussion and possible 3RR).
David, this has been months ago. Droliver was also blocked for edit warring. Are you going to bring him here? He has also done edit warring recently, with that article. IS he going to be sanctioned? I t hink your bringing this here now is malicious. Yes, you most certainy are involved. I have begged you or someone to warn Droliver to stop with his insults towards DrZuckerman (who is a Yale-trained epidemiologist, since Drolvier seems to gain credibility by his profession), but David has done nothing. Jance18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is all now proving sufficiently disruptive to warrant action, but how best to proceed? Merely give each a warning that further action will result in a block (but both have either prior blocks or warnings on this) ? If I block now, presumably Jance's block should be even-handily just a single day to match new-user Curtis Bledsoe's first block ?
Why don't you also bring Droliver here, since he has been consistently guilty of edit warring? Why don't you get anyone else who has been in the past a part of edit warring? It seems to be that you are now coming in after the fact, to punish. That is amazing.Jance18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history is here, but to summarise the exchanges:
04:35, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (→Systemic illness and disease) [rollback] -- CB edit
02:09, 31 December 2006 Jance (It makes no sense without this sentence.) -- J's revert of previous blanking, whilst I agree previous sentence blanking needed reverting, this is #5 reverting in this tussle.
01:50, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (→Systemic illness and disease - Actually, the entire setence is irrelevant. The complaints are listed, that's enough.) -- CB's deletion of a sentence (this has been previously discussed on talk page. Whilst not a revert, constitutes breach of partial consensus on talk page thus "problem edit" number 4).
01:47, 31 December 2006 Jance -- J's revert (1 of sequence, Total #4)
01:37, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (→Systemic illness and disease) -- CB's addition of a "fact" tag
01:20, 31 December 2006 Jance (This user should be banned.) -- J's revert (2 of sequence, Total #3)
01:18, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (Revert - removed inaccurate information) -- CB's revert (2 of sequence, Total #3)
01:05, 31 December 2006 Jance (restore - someone needs to ban this person) -- J's revert (1 of sequence, Total #2)
01:03, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (Revert - removed inaccurate information) -- CB's revert of J's edit (1 of sequence, Total #2)
01:03, 31 December 2006 Jance (Restoring version which included points others agreed on) -- J's edit
01:01, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (Revert - removed inaccurate information) -- CB's revert (1 of sequence, Total #1)
00:51, 31 December 2006 Jance (reverting to Doliver's) -- J's revert to CB's prior edit (1 of sequence, Total #1)
WHOSE BIAS?? If you look at NCAHF you will see that Curtis is still reverting with impunity. Also, if you look at his 'edits' above, you will see that they are in fact reversions. Also, the last person to revert was Droliver. He has continuously reverted, and been warned to "apologize" by David (which Oliver of course ignored). I am not going to revert, but I would like someone to do something on [[]NCAHF]]. WIll Curtis be able to continue with his abusiveness? Or is he just succeeding in driving everyone off, since nobody will stop him? Jance20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I previously informally mediated on this article some months ago, and more recently added some comments on the talk page, so I'm perhaps not entirely uninvolved with the article's development. So thoughts from more experienced Admins (or Admin-watchers) would be appreciated :-) David RubenTalk04:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I already comment on this? I seem to be slightly confused. Zoe, that's why I closed the 3RR notice as there was no warning. El_C05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that it spans further than one article, and Jance was a different user in the past and had been blocked for 3RR as that user, but since they both have stopped it would seem the blocks(at least for 3RR) would be pointless. --Wildnox(talk)05:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been one user in the past -- over 6 months ago. The block was on one article, on which two editors were blocked temporarily (Droliver and I). It seems that David wanted to resurrect old complaints, and is selective in doing so, since Droliver has edit warred as much as I have on this article. Jance18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I didn't notice that previous user thing. Jance should in fact be blocked, she apparently had been blocked many times for this before, and therefore had full knowledge of the rules. --Wildnox(talk)05:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone had full knowledge of the rules. Please take a look at what Curtis did after his edits were tagged with Copyright. I might add also that David's friend Droliver has also edit-warred frequently and recently, so if we are going to start blocking people who have recently edit warred and ever had a block in the past, Droliver should be here too. Jance18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you avoided a 3RR block because everyone that saw it thought you were a new user with no prior warning, that is obviously not the case.--Wildnox(talk)20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I believe both users should be blocked, I was holding off suggesting Bledsoe be blocked, but now I suggest that may be a possible solution. --Wildnox(talk)05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to cool things down between Ronz and Curtis Bledsoe and (apparently) put an end to the revert warring. I did get Jance's and Curtis' view of events, for what that's worth, but the situation proved too complex in the time I had before I must go on wikibreak, which starts right now.--KchaseT13:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A guy with sudden interest, intruding on Jance's obvious interest in BI with such heavy, high velocity edits seems likely as a strategic form of wikistalking to me. A number of editors are not happy with Curtis' edits, also including my usual opponents (we now have something, -one, to agree about). see NCAHF article & talk for starters, complaints are also scattered elsewhere. I would be so bold as to suggest that in some other areas Curtis' aggressiveness may cause Wikipedia:Expert retention problems[39] i.e. useful legal reviews for WP articles' complex issues.--I'clast14:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was wiki-stalking, and in fact someone else already pointed that out. And it appears that David is trying to use this as an opportunity to block me. I have repeatedly complained about Droliver's edit warring and sarcastic comments - David, only once, told Drolvier that he should apologize for his reversion. Of course, Oliver never did. By David's logic, Droliver should have been blocked, and still should be. I urge anyone that questions the events to look at NCAHF. It's pretty clear what happened. And David has gone out of his way to escallate the problem, after any "edit warring" was stopped and after Curtis' complaint was closed. I was invited to lodge a complaint against Curtis, but declined to because I thought it would look retaliatory. It appears, however, that retaliation is a Wiki tradition, evidently used by admins as well as the community at large.. Something is indeed wrong here.Jance18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re Jance & DrOliver edit warring, that previously resulted in a temporary protection to the Breast implant page by Samir. Since then I thought discussion had been more civil; with DrZuckerman somewhat acting as a discussion facilitator and other editors also contributing and Samir keeping a light-touch overview. Advice on the way to proceed on that article has been repeatedly given by a number of editors and admins (raise one point at a time for civil AGF discussion, obtain straw-poll helping to clarify consensus and then implement. Editors failing to follow consensus should have this politely point this out on talk page and if still act disruptive to the collaborative process then to follow normal dispute resolution - RfC, mediation or more formal AN/I, but further personal engagement in edit/revert warring is not the way to proceed).
I would agree, looking further back that DrO and you have been having a lower-level tussle in the last couple of days at least. AN/I is not really about content dispute resolution but rather about stopping edit warring, dealing with disruptive behaviour. Having been previously involved, I sought advice/opinions from other admins and the outcome has been that discussion has ensued with CB and also some advice on descaling disputed with J (along with support over a difficult period on a couple of articles), and another admin has protected the page again as "The article seems to have descended back into edit warring". This should now force all editors to again return to talk page discussion. David RubenTalk02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am glad this is over, and you saw what happened. It did seem very odd that you would open a new An/I immediately after one closed. This An/I seemed to solely be directed at me; hence, my conclusion. It is possible I was mistaken. I have always AGF with you, but this was baffling. That was why I expressed my opinion, as to what appeared to have occurred here. I might note that the last reversion on the Breast Implant article was by Droliver, not by me. In fact, I had made no reversions on any article after the 'warning'. Curtis, on the other hand, has. Droliver has, as well, after being told by you to apologize for a reversion. Regardless, I am glad that this is now over. And I am glad that you think DrZuckerman is facilitating discussion. However, it has not stopped Droliver from reverting her edits.Jance21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NCAHF, Again
I will note that Curtis has again reverted NCAHF - this is after every single editor on that talk page had reached a consensus that his edits were unencyclopedic. He is flatly ignoring every other editor. I would like to see something done about this. This includes editors who like Barrett, those who are neutral, and those who dont. So why is one user allowed to run rampant reverting at will, despite a 100% consensus that what he was adding was inappropriate, long etc?Jance19:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ISN'T THIS JUST AMAZING HOW AN EDITOR IS FREE TO REVERT REPEATEDLY (DOZENS OF TIMES), INSULT, CONDESCEND AND ABUSE OTHER EDITORS, ASSSERT WP:OWN DESPITE EVERY OTHER EDITOR'S INPUT, AND IS ABLE TO DO SO WITH IMPUNTY?
FORGET ABOUT PAST MISDEEDS - HE CONTINUES TO DO THIS. HE HAS JUST NOW DONE THIS ON NCAHF. AND I TAKE IT NOBODY GIVES A DAMN,. I BET IF I REVERTED IT BACK DAVID AND OTHER ADMINS HERE WOULD CARE. WHAT DO YOU THINK?Jance20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to know that blocks are not used as "punishment". Therefore, the AN/I complaint that was opened immediately after one was already closed on me was either ignorant or vindictive. (Unlike Curtis, I did not continue to revert.) Thanks for the info.Jance21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Screaming at us won't prod us to do something. Not only is it uncivil, but it gives us the spiteful intention to blatantly ignore it your earsplitting request. --210physicq (c) 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anon user with a dynamic IP keeps adding linkspam to this article. I'm right on the verge of a 3RR and even though I consider it vandalism to keep adding the links, I'd be grateful for an independant editor to visit and cast their eye over the links. Also, I would appreciate advice on what to do next? Page protection seems a bit extreme, maybe adding the links to the blacklist?
The relevant links are
www.diplomaticpassport.com Diplomatic Passport and Diplomatic Appointment service (with images)
www.diplomaticworldservices.com Diplomatic Passport and Honorary Consul service (with images)
Note that in WP:3RR, vandalism (which link-spamming is) is explicitly excluded from your "count". (Make sure to make clear in your edit summary that you are "reverting linkspam vandalism, 3RR not applicable to this edit", or something like that. Also, you can report this to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection and ask for semi-protection, which prevents IPs from editing, but allows everyone with an account older than 5-days. Bucketsofg17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And removing unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages is also exlcuded from 3RR per WP:BLP.--Oden17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're all from addresses in the 82.154.* block, some ISP in Lisboa, Portugal. Should we just semi-protect Passport? A short-term range-block would work too, but it looks like the vandalism is limited to this article. (Spartaz, if you get reported for 3RR, just post a note on my talk page and I'll try to take care of it for you. You're in the clear on this one.) | Mr. Darcytalk17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and sprotected it. If someone comes up with a better plan, please feel free to remove protection. Cheers. Dina18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quicky - how long should we leave it semiprotected? The article gets a lot of good anon editing as well and it would be a shame to lose it for too long? Spartaz22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on the legitimacy of the move, but the current title gave me an initial impression that Hong Kong was put on a barge by the UK and shipped to the PRC in 1997. --210physicq (c) 21:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid here's not the right place to comment on the title (such comment should better be made at the article's talk page). What should be addressed here are whether blocking revert of moves and disabling redirects ever allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks. — Instantnood21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to instantnood's claims, there has indeed been a discussion "somewhere" about this move, and that was in no other than Talk:Transfer_of_Hong_Kong. Why have you not commented there if you have a factual disagreement, but chose to raise it here and taking issue with his behavior instead?--Huaiwei22:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
instantnood quite clearly pointed out that edit, and also pointed out that it occurred after having performed the move twice. I agree that discussion should continue there. Also, I doubt the "disabling of redirects" was intentional, my guess is that the user didn't know that placing text in front of the #REDIRECT breaks it. —bbatsell¿?23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Would you consider advising him not to perform such edits anymore in future, by sending him a notice at his user talk page? I don't know if that's necessary or not. — Instantnood23:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VitaleBaby deleting all messages from talk page
VitaleBaby(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) I posted this to Obvious Vandalism and it was deleted with the edit summary "take it to incidents". This editor habitually deletes warnings, notices, and everything else from his talk page. This editor is NOT archiving his messages, he is DELETING .This would constitute vandalism to me, but apparently nobody has reported him. [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] and it goes on and on. I haven't bothered issuing a warning as they have already been issued (see first link) and summarily deleted. TheQuandry21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vandalism if it's only to his own talk page. I don't see any issue in his contribs; I'd like it if he'd use sources in his edits, but that's about it. | Mr. Darcytalk22:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To further expound on MrDarcy's comments, removing things from your own talk page can be interpreted as a violation of WP:CIVIL, depending entirely on the context. I don't think someone can be blocked unilaterally just for removing content from one's own talk page. I have also read before that a previous ArbCom ruling held that removing warnings from one's own talk page is acceptable, but is tantamount to "accepting" the warning, and future administrative actions should take the removed warnings into account. (If this is correct, could someone provide a link so I can read through it, and if it's not, could someone correct me, please? Thanks!) —bbatsell¿?22:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
when csloat testifies that my addition of a single, relevant cross-link is "disruptive," that is a chracterization, albeit one that fails the standard of reasonability. it's a relief to see that you don't endorse that charaterization. but when he asserts that i "refused to explain" my "actions in talk", it is - i really don't want to use harsh language - but it is a lie, and one which can be exposed by simply reviewing the talk page.
i've begun seeking mediation to resolve csloat's aggressive and wordless reverting by seeking out advocates (Pedant, Kmweber, Amerique), as i was led to understand that this was the initial step in the mediation process. should i have perhaps come here first?
in addition to the repeated and wordless reverts at the Quran article, csloat now appears to have taken up the habit of running down my contrib logs and reverting what he sees there. i interpret this as a violation of WP:NPA, what do you think?
i don't wish to have a revert-war or an edit war of any sort and i hope this can be resolved. it's like lennon said - war is over...if you want it. 67.175.216.9000:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, by my reading i've followed these guidlines thoroughly and in good faith. i'm am now at the steps under subheading four and the unexplained bullying persists from csloat bundled with newer, more invasive antagonisms.
The "piss christ" is just not relevant to the article he keeps adding it to. He has never justified the edit and the question was settled months ago. He has not returned with any additional arguments in favor of the edit. In addition, he violated the 3RR. csloat00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i am in technical violation of 3RR (i've only reverted twice "today"), but i began seeking mediation prior to my first revert. in contrast, csloat has one revert left before violation. he has so far not returned to the talk page to explain his behavior. he has refused to communicate directly with me, but has shadowed me from page to page reverting my edits and telling fibs like the one above about the matter.
Yes, he was warned, and he was urged months ago to stop inserting nonsense into the article. I've reported his 3RR on the appropriate page so hopefully it will be handled. I have communicated directly with him as I did months ago and he simply ignored my arguments and called me abusive. I don't know what else to do about it; I'm backing off the Quran article for now. csloat01:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
csloat only communicated with me just after this past posting of mine. prior to that, my attempts at talking the issue out were met with silence. needless to say, the first i became aware of any "warning" was when i read his intent to get me banned here.
For a month there have been complaints on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) about the Chinese Wikipedia, claiming that it is mainly government propaganda, with at least one of the complainants having been banned from that wiki. This complaining has, in my view, reached the point of disruption, with me just extending the block on User:SummerThunder to indefinite for block evasion. The block was for personal attacks, and he was evading the block in order to repeatedly post and repost rantings across all Village Pumps. My extension on the account was the fourth today. (Note that indefinite is not necessarily infinite, if he promises to stop evading then I will unblock him, and if I don't then all admins have my blessing to do so instead.)
I suggest that as this discussion/argument/ranting is a waste of all sides' time, as we have no jurisdiction over the Chinese Wikipedia, we should close those discussions and revert futher posts. I have posted about this on Wikipedia talk:Village pump (miscellaneous), but as I don't know how much attention that page gets, I'm posting here for more pairs of eyes.
If anyone wants to dispute my block of SummerThunder, I guess we can do that here - but I don't think it should be particularly controversial. The indefinite block is not meant to be a community ban, only a temporary measure until he stops evading his block. --Sam Blanning(talk)00:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I wouldn't object if this were a community ban. This editor has been on the fast track with prolific disruption and rejection of feedback. I think we can accept the bans at two other Wikimedia projects as precedents: this person does not come to Wikipedia.en with the clean slate that WP:AGF normally accords new users. While I don't think this person is deliberately trolling, they're like a bull in a china shop all over a group of articles and Village Pump. It should not take twenty reminders, or fifty, to convey the principle that Wikipedia.en is not a grievance venue for Meta or Wikipedia.zh. Nor is it tolerable to spam procedural queries at the Pump after the edior has been given repeated referrals to WP:ADOPT. This crowds out legitimate threads and sets a bad example. Kudos to Sam for taking strong action when necessary. DurovaCharge!04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I blocked him for 24 hours and he returned with sock puppets to continue making attacks. He has been banned from meta and zh for the same behavior. We don't need him. User:Zoe|(talk)20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two threads in a row... can someone do a rangeblock on User:SummerThunder's roving IPs? These history pages [55][56][57] show some of the recent ones, they're the ones beginning with 7 being rolled back. I semi-protected some pages but he seems to have too many targets for that to be viable now, and I'm going to bed. Unfortunately I don't know anything about rangeblocks. --Sam Blanning(talk)00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oof... It looks like his range is 75.0.0.0 to 75.31.255.255, which would be a huge block (2,097,152 IPs). Range blocks are limited to at most /16 so we'd have to go through and block 75.0.0.0/16 — 75.31.0.0/16. I don't have enough experience either physically doing range blocks or with the policy implications involved so I'll leave it to another but it may be a much better alternative to simply sprotect the pages he's causing the most damage on. —bbatsell¿?01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No they're all PPP in what appears to be Irving, CA, which SBC has apparently stupidly distributed across a bunch of /22 ranges. We could block them and it would be relatively few IPs, much less than even the 65,000 IPs of a /16 block. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of situation that really makes me wish Wikipedia would implement technical restrictions on variable/shared IP editing. I don't mind unregistered editing from stable IP addresses and stable proxies, but the current dilemma is a major resource drain. DurovaCharge!04:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked 75.8.100.0/22, 75.3.192.0/22, 75.2.220.0/22, 71.156.32.0/20, 75.1.248.0/22, 75.3.224.0/20 for 2 weeks anon. only. These are undoubtedly not all of his available dynamically assigned IPs, but these are all the ones he has used recently, probably most of them, which will at least make his crusade much less productive, and we can block any further ones that come up. —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After having been inactive since April 2006 and editing only sporadically from February 2005 until then, Askewmind(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) re-appeared last week to remove a bunch of "no license" tags from various images and replaced them with "{{GFDL}}". That sort of peculiarity in editing patterns makes me think he is currently editing under a different account, and using the older one only for disruptive purposes. All 12 of the images that he tagged as GFDL (obviously bollocks in this context) were ones that had been tagged for deletion by User:Durin. Possibly a personal grudge of some kind, I don't know. In any case I would like to know if there is a compelling reason not to block User:Askewmind indefinitely. Thanks. —freak(talk) 02:25, Jan. 1, 2007 (UTC)
Note that since these images are categorized for speedy deletion due to the dates of their original tagging, some or all of them may be deleted by the time anybody actually reads this. In fact, Askewmind may have falsely tagged other images that were deleted before I noticed him. Here are his edits that are currently visible to me:
His reappearance may be related to OrphanBot leaving him a message about one of those images on his talk page, and the change of tag is probably because the original {{coat of arms}} tag was removed from them. --Carnildo09:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iantresman has been warned about disruptive editing twice since the ArbComm by (involved) admins FeloniousMonk here and Guy here, warnings that in my view are warranted.
I agree that Tresman is a problem. I note, though, that he does seem to be leaving the articles alone and sticking to Talk. However, his behaviour on Talk could best be described as "obdurate". See Talk:Wolf effect for a good example - he repeatedly asserts that ScienceApologist will not compromise but despite many offers he has yet to offer a compromise proposal for SA to accept or reject. He also refuses to acknowledge that the text he wishes to insert, is in support of the agenda which we know he is following. SA is capitalising on Tresman's article restrictions to move the articles to a much more sceptical stance - this would be much more of a problem if it weren't for the fact that these are in the main fringe theories. I lack the specialist knowledge to contribute in more detail, other than matters of interpretation (such as resisting a link to a propaganda film made by the plasma cosmology camp). Guy (Help!) 09:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bucketsofg's analysis of the situation is correct. As Guy says, Iantresman is not editing heavily in the articles, though I do see a couple of reverts on the 30th. An article ban is probably not justified right now. More concern to me is Iantresman's use of dispute resolution to harass ScienceApologist. This seems to me disruptive enough in its own right to justify a block, or maybe even a temporary ban under a broad reading of the arbitrarion remedy. I don't see recent on-going incivility from ScienceApologist that would make a caution necessary. Tom HarrisonTalk12:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had meant to include talk pages in the ban and have added it since Tom & Guy's comments. Although much more latitude is given to users on talk pages, Ian's behaviour is becoming disruptive enough that something has to be done. Bucketsofg15:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the fourth report, such nursed slights as Lantresman seems to have are divisive, create a negative environment on the encyclopedia, and poison the well - many editors aren't going to want to touch an article where this kind of negative environment exists, for fear of becoming entangled in this whole dispute. They seem to have an emotional attachment to the article, and are unable to disengage, as I feel they should. To be blunt, at this point it just looks like an axe to grind with a side order of gaming the system. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )19:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My final inclination is (1) a one-day block for disruption and (2) a three-week ban from the pages mentioned above and their talk pages. The ban is shortened slightly in light of the comments of Tom and Guy. It seems to me, however, that it is the ArbComm remedy that must be our guide: it says he can be "banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing". The disruption is mentioned by several and is clear; there is clear aggressiveness in the "gaming" that Peter mentions; bias is obvious. The remedy calls for bans from articles, which will have the added advantage of removing, hopefully, some of the divisiveness on the affected pages. I am going to wait a few hours before imposing this. If an admin suggests a change, can I ask that you propose a very specific one either on the remedy and/or its length. Bucketsofg20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see this. I've just unblocked. I could only see one warning about spamming on his Talk page, with no mention of the possibility of a block, and I think that he deserves one benefit of the doubt. I'll be watching (as, no doubt, will others), and the block can be reistated if he again edits so as to advertise anything. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at User talk:82.148.97.69, and it seems that this IP address is one of a few used by the proxy servers of Qatar's only ISP, Qtel (which apparently also censors content). The IP address has been blocked for a month for repeated vandalism (diff) (block log). Perhaps a softblock might be sufficient? --Oden12:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinate softblock is probably best - one IP for an entire country should be treated similarly to an open proxy, I think (but soft, not hard, as it's not the resident's fault). Some kind of block is required, though - we can't let vandals get away with it just because they have a stupid ISP. --Tango13:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tango above, as the vandalism isn't going to go away once the block expires anyawy. It definately needs to be soft (account creation allowed) in any case - the usual advice of registering an account elsewhere and logging in on the blocked IP is impossible, it seems. Probably best if we sort this out quickly. Martinp2313:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this solution. If there's (maybe inevitably) more vandalism from this address once the block expires, we should consider permanently softblocking it. Sandstein14:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanatory message to the top of the talk page, which has been linked to from Slashdot. I hope it's clear enough, if not feel free to improve it. Don't we have a template for this? Sandstein15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that at the time the address was blocked, I had no idea that I was blocking an entire country. It was not even marked as a shared IP. Although there was a comment on the discussion page, the IP was not marked as shared and I did not read that comment to mean that this was the only ISP serving Qatar. Frankly, I am stunned that an entire country can get by with only one IP address, though I understand about proxies and the like. I would like to say that I will never do this again in the future but in all honesty, it is entirely possible that I will make similar mistakes in the future. Such is not my intention and I would never have blocked this address had I known it was shared (let alone that it was an entire nation). --Yamla20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, I am not a U.S. citizen nor do I live in the U.S. My block was not politically motivated nor had anything to do with Al Jazeera journalists. There is no cabal, nor was this block an example of U.S. censorship, etc. etc. etc. --Yamla20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good apology for an honest mistake; no one here suspects foul play in anyway. The sensationalism should have been avoided. —Quarl(talk) 2007-01-01 22:55Z
Indeed. As far as I can tell, everyone acted correctly - policy doesn't say what to do when a country only has one IP address, it was never anticipated... Yamla did what seemed perfectly correct at the time. --Tango23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
150 edits have been made from this IP in the last 21 days; while that's significant for a normal IP, it's nothing for the nation of Qatar. Per Yamla's statement above, I've unblocked this address. Ral315 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This IP address should be treated like any other shared address. When we get lots of vandalism from a school, we softblock it, we should do the same here. Might as well leave it unblocked for now, but if there is any more vandalism, it will have to reblocked. --Tango23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term, low-key, IP-switching spammer
A number of old computer game articles have been receiving identical spamlinks to a warez paysite masquerading as a free abandonware site. Editors have intercepted most of them. A search found that this is rather big and has been going on since the 2th of October. At least 34 anon IPs have been used for at least 45 acts of spamming, the great majority abandoned after one use. Kjkolb notes that their locations are all over the planet and suspects an open proxy. So what do we now? --Kizor13:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone pls help with this - I'm not an admin, and the image is being inserted in several places. [61] Add to checkuser for main page template vandal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rolled back the edits, blocked the user and deleted the image. Might be a good idea to request a checkuser, I agree. --Tango16:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protected. Both users appear to be carefully skirting 3RR, but the edit war shows no signs of letting up. I'm not sure what other solution there would be. | Mr. Darcytalk20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pastorwayne has been creating categories at an incredible rate. An incomplete list for the month of December is available here; this list does not include many of the categories created after 12:48 on 31 December (when Pastorwayne created four more categories). A significant fraction of these categories end up in WP:CFD. I am keeping a list of Pastorwayne categories that are merged or deleted here, but this list also needs to be updated and also does not include Pastorwayne's categories from November 2006.
These categories are creating a huge amount of traffic at WP:CFD.
I would like to suggest that the administrators either do one of the following:
Bar Pastorwayne from category creation.
Require Pastorwayne to have other people review his proposed categories before they are created.
BrownHairedGirl, an administrator, had attempted to discuss this rampant category creation with Pastorwayne before 22 December 2006. However, she is apparently still on vacation, and this needs immediate administrative attention.
I sincerely regret having to do this. However, Pastorwayne seems to be out of control. I can ask other people to comment if necessary.
Yes I agree. I think that having too many unnecessary (and some inflammatory) cats goes against the purpose of a "category", which is to have a few denominations which are used to classify groups of articles. At the rate at which Pastorwayne is going, every article will have a category of it's own, which makes the whole process of categorization meaningless.Rumpelstiltskin22322:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree. PW is creating an untold amount of over-categorisation and clearly fails to understand how much chaos he is causing. I think he should be stopped immediately. - Kittybrewster23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of CfD's going on at any given time without us worrying about one user's overwhelming number of "products". I have seen the number of categories this user created and judging from the number of discussion on his talk page, some sort of action seems necessary at this point. Xiner (talk, email) 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal info on talkpage
Can someone please delete this (not just blank)? I ask here because it doesn't really fit into WP:CSD. It is an article talkpage with only one comment on it; presumably a kid leaving his/her phone number. Edokter (Talk) 23:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note • If you wish to have a user checked with CheckUser, please post on WP:RFCU. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Clerk note: RFCU result. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
