Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Admin User:Hemanshu making non-MOS edits and refusing to answer talk page

Bringing this here from WP:WQA. User:It Is Me Here makes a convincing case here that Hemanshu is being totally unresponsive in the face of arguably counterproductive edits (and certainly non-consensus edits).

Hopefully this can be resolved without involving the Arbcom.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think ArbCom is necessary just yet, nor that anything can be accomplished here right now. But if he continues with such edits and remains entirely unresponsive, a block may become necessary, and should he then proceed to unblock himself despite consensus to the contrary, an emergency desysop by ArbCom may be the way to go. Weird stuff. At any rate, I've notified him of this thread, as should always be done. Here's also a permlink to the WQA section. Everyme 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see. Please note that Hemanshu's (contributions) last edit to his talk page was in April 2006 and it was to delete some messages. The last time he replied to a post on his talk page was in 2005 (which does also show, incidentally, that he does know how to do it). It Is Me Here (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He also never uses edit summaries, something I have mentioned to him on his talk page. I think we need to try for a few days to discuss this on his talk page and if he doesn't respond and continue, I agree that he should be blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I heard he also eats puppies. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He's an Admin, we should expect certain standards of Admins. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Note he's been editing for almost 5 years, things were different back then (not that that is an excuse). John Reaves 08:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of note: he is an administrator, yes, but he has not used his administrator tools for some years (with a single exception in February 2008: one, bog-standard anonymous vandal block). Whether that means he should be held to the same extent to the same standards of conduct as an active administrator is, of course, a parallel—but important—debate. – Anthøny (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of emailing him their concerns? He does have email enabled. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, this is just like the CSCWEM mess. Everyone's like, "Well, let's give him a chance to respond first." "No, uh, we already did that." "Well... do it again." "Okay". (time passes) "CSCWEM is not responding to talk page messages." "Well, let's give him a chance to respond first." etcetra ;D

Anyway, yes, MBisanz is right, e-mail is the next step. If after a couple of weeks he doesn't respond to the e-mail and/or continues disruptive edits despite the e-mail, I agree next step would be a block. If he unblocks himself without responding, only then would be ArbCom. I only mentioned ArbCom in my initial comment because I don't imagine it will ever come to that point.

I guess I'll fire off the e-mail. I was sorta hoping someone who knew him would, but it doesn't look like anybody knows him. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the e-mail I sent:

Hi Hemanshu. Please be aware of the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_User:Hemanshu_making_non-MOS_edits_and_refusing_to_answer_talk_page

I'm sorry if my initial report came across confrontationally, I was mentioning what I hoped did NOT happen and I guess it came across as if I was suggesting it SHOULD happen. heh, oh well... Anyway, there are legitimate concerns over your Wikifying of dates (appears to be contraindicated by MoS) and multiple attempts to contact you on your talk page have not been successful. If you could just weigh in with an explanation of what's up, that would be appreciated. Thanks!

---Jay Sweet

Hopefully he'll see that and we can get this all sorted out with no mess! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

According to SUL Tool he has accounts on other wikis, we might try posting to his talk pages there and emailing there (if he has a different email registered at enwiki and ennews for instance). Jaysweet, since you did the initial email, could you do these as well? MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. Since when did MOS become policy? If you disagree with his edits, fix them. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In many situation, you would be correct. But adding links to dates is rarely useful and therefore has been largely abandoned, which means it's really not so much a matter of case-by-case editor discretion (although datelinks are sometimes useful) but of basic formatting. People just have to run around and clean up after him and the fact that he doesn't use edit summaries nor respond at all makes it a bit difficult to actually see the good intentions in his editing beyond simply assuming good faith as we all do. Everyme 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the "delete all date links" crowd has run roughshod over the opposition, it's not basic formatting, it's opinion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mindless overlinking and things like flagicon overkill are objectively bad. Some people just keep not getting it. Everyme 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Violating MoS is not a reason to block, of course. Making a non-consensus edit (which, presumably, would be a valid way to classify any non-MoS edit), having another editor call you out on it, and then continuing to make the same/similar non-consensus edits without responding on the talk page... that's not an insta-block, but if it persists, it is blockable. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears Hemanshu castes a decent internet presence. Jaysweet, I'm going to send you a list of alternate emails he uses that you might try him at. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Jaysweet, it appears your email is disabled. Is there another way I can send you his email addresses? MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is another fresh addition of date links, still with no talk page response or edit summary. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is totally inappropriate behavior; he's acting against consensus on a mass scale and is unwilling to reply and explain himself. If he does this again, he should be blocked. Everyking (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He made two edits to Odwalla, solely for the purpose of linking dates, just two hours ago. He is ignoring consensus and ignoring the concerns that have been raised. I don't think anything less than a block will get the message across at this point. Everyking (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Diff. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to try one more thing tonight or tomorrow to try and contact him. If not, then we may have to block. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If [1] doesn't do anything, well, its self-explanatory the next steps. MBisanz ^talk 21:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit [2] seems to indicate he clearly knows what he is doing when he edits. Odd. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I would call this blatant disregard for all of the attempts to communicate. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I will begin filing the desysop paperwork. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_desysop_and_block_of_administrator_Hemanshu. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since he's not using his admin rights, this is just a blocking situation, not a desysopping one. There is no need to file for arbitration. If it is agreed he should be blocked, just block. This specifically falls outside of what should be requested for arbitration. Your claim is that an admin can unblock themselves. If he does that only then does this become a desysopping situation. It doesn't become one pre-emptively. - Taxman ^Talk 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to block now, pending communication, and then if he still fails to communicate, the argument for desysopping would be stronger. The immediate problem is editorial, which a block would fix; the refusal to communicate, combined with low-level editing in defiance of consensus, suggests a good case for desysopping, but that case would be stronger if he was blocked and never asked for it to be lifted—and if he unblocked himself, then there'd be no question about it at all. Everyking (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP/libel issue?

Resolved

Resolved

material reverted, user blocked by vigilant admin; block independantly reviewed. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

... reopened to address question of new BLP issues, and ask for block review. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this diff a cause for concern vis a vis libel? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NEW, AFTER FURTHER REVIEW: The user has now posted links to articles here, avoiding the copyright problem, but potentially still raising a BLP/libel issues. Is this appropriate? Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How does posting links to reputable news articles raise BLP/libel issues? Looie496 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles themselves attack a public figure and do not contain or discose independant sources. It may be a reach, but there could still be libel liability issues. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

These are reliable sources. There's no BLP issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Used on a user page, they pose an undue weight problem. The user is welcome to disclose that they have had prior conflict with that judge, but not to present biased viewpoints, even if they are reliable sources, (see WP:COATRACK as well). WP is not a blog or a forum for continuing conflict from elsewhere. Admins should review the deleted edits on this user's page for more insight into why this is problematic. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, as few people will have the background on this situation: On her userpage, this editor posted (1) a copyright news report and then (after it was removed and she was warned not to do it again), (2) a series of links to news reports with respect to the same person, with the edit summaries "my good news hurrah hurrah". It should be noted that this editor has a real-world adversarial relationship with the subject of these news articles (administrators can see her description of it in the first version of her userpage, now deleted in part for BLP reasons). The links were not proposed for article space, they were put in userspace by a user who has been asked repeatedly to leave the external battles behind. Behaviour like this is exactly why WP:BLP applies throughout all areas of the project. Risker (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. Since we're here, let me ask for review of my block of Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). See my talk page recently... (topic "Query": User_talk:Lar#Query). I blocked this editor for a week (the next step up from 3 days) after my initial removal of the BLPvio/Copyvio text was undone by placing these links. Those who know me know that I am very reluctant to block, in general, and quick to give second chances and try to find other ways to deal with issues. This user is intransigent and either cannot or will not work within our norms and it's time to cut our losses and reduce the disruptive effect this user has. So far everyone who has reviewed it on my talk page has concurred with it, except Elonka. She has engaged in rather a long dialog with somewhat shifting goals as we've refuted various points raised. Right now I think she wants the block undone (since she doesn't agree it is a BLP violation to cite sources showing a clear adversary in a negative light without a chance to make them balanced as we do in an article) and redone under some other pretext. I'm not sure that's a good use of anyone's time and I ask that my block be endorsed, and her going to the user's page to contradict what I said be pointed out to her as less than helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like everyone on Lar's page agrees that a block is called for, leaving the only area of disagreement the reason for the block. My two pennies - given her history here, the statements she has made regarding her case and the judge in the past, and the seeming agenda with which she edits Wikipedia in general... it is reasonable to interpret her posting the bit about the judge with the edit summary "my good news, hurrah hurrah" as violating BLP. Folks might disagree with how serious a violation it is, given the news has apparently been covered in reliable sources, but the presentation of the material is not irrelevant in considering the BLP policy.

Kay has been blocked before, and has had the full attention of two administrators and a number of editors for quite awhile because of her disruptive and at times combative editing style. She has been warned repeatedly about soapboxing about her personal legal history, and a block is warranted this time around solely on that basis. Whether BLP was the best of the various reasons to use in the log is irrelevant - the block is good, and Elonkas suggestion to unblock and reblock with a different reason is a nonstarter. Avruch ^T 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Kay's unblock request doesn't help matters at all either. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I echo Avruch's evaluation of this matter, and concur that Lar's original block was warranted. Anthøny (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. I've had my fair share of differences with Lar on many previous occasions, but not on this occasion - I am in complete agreement with Avruch's view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block Proper block, within discretion, no need to unblock at this time, let it run its course. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. User pages should not be used as a soapbox in real world legal battles. Also I do not consider some of these sources as reliable(e.g. [3]); they are breaking news (i.e. wild speculation), without a named journalist. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kay Sieverding. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I am in agreement that a block was appropriate, though I disagree that there was a clear BLP violation here. A better block rationale might have been "disruption", "soapboxing", "inappropriate use of userpage", "tendentious editing", or "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Choosing a BLP rationale was fairly weak, and it is evident that not everyone is in agreement that there was an obvious BLP violation here. I would also like to say that I am very disappointed with how Lar has been behaving when his block was challenged at his talkpage. When independent editors/administrators expressed concerns to him about the block rationale, his response was to react with defensiveness, incivility, accusations of bad faith, and name-calling. Someone with steward access should be reacting with a far higher standard of behavior, and I hope Lar will take some time to think about how he could have handled this better. --Elonka 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm always open to feedback, but I thought this matter was resolved, as far as AN/I is concerned, anyway. I think your characterizations of how I handled the discussion at my talk are extremely wide of the mark (anyone else interested should feel free to review the entire thread and judge for themselves) and do you no credit. ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of supporting accusations like "incivility, accusations of bad faith, and name calling" with diffs so that other readers can make an informed opinion. I thought we just dealt with the issue (in an ArbCom) of admins who make such charges about fellow editors at AN/I without substantiating diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the link is already in this thread, but here it is again: User talk:Lar#Query. --Elonka 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a diff (but surely you know that). I'd like to see a specific diff to back up each of these charges: 1) incivility, 2) accusations of bad faith, and 3) name calling. These kinds of broadbrush accusations about other editors should always be backed by diffs, and we shouldn't fall into the habit of taking one person's "opinion" as evidence. Again, I thought we just went through that at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI Sandy, there is an RfC/User re: the editor's alleged misdeeds, with more diffs than you can shake a stick at. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record I do not believe Sandy was referring to Kay. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, there is very little gain to be had in carrying this discussion forward in this manner. If there is a need for a user or admin conduct RfC, or a more structured discussion, then have it in the appropriate place. But the underlying issue of this section, and the purpose for its existence on this page, seems to have been resolved. I think the best thing for everyone to do at this point is to let it go, and move on to more productive pursuits. Avruch ^T 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I always welcome constructive review of my actions, and more specifically, I am always open to recall if someone feels the need. Elonka would have to find someone else to start the petition though, per my eligibility requirements, since she's not open to recall. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a recall matter, but for the record, yes, I am open to recall. My standards are listed along with everyone else's at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. --Elonka 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your last "recall". You're not open to recall. At least not as I would define it. That's OK, you don't have to be, most admins aren't, and there's nothing wrong or dishonorable about that. But it's disingenious to say you are. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar, that's kind of the point of our voluntary recall process, is that each admin can set their own criteria. Looking through the list, there are vastly different standards from admin to admin. Now, if you want your own standards to say, "Elonka can't ask me to resign," that's fine, that's up to you. In fact, some admins even go the other way, saying, only someone from a certain list that they provide, is allowed to initiate a recall. It's really up to each admin what they choose. But if the criterion is, "an admin open to recall", well, I'm open to recall. I don't have to be, but I choose to be. --Elonka 03:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, lecturing me on the point of a process I was instrumental in developing and promoting probably isn't going to earn you any style points with anyone. You do have a bit of a tendency to lecture others about stuff, don't you? Anyway, maybe you are recallable now. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, and gladly. But you weren't before, when your last "recall" went down. Not in my view anyway, and not in the view of quite a few other people (or perhaps you forgot the hue and cry about it, culminating in an attempt to get ArbCom to get involved to make you stick to your supposed terms, which attempt failed only because ArbCom had the good sense to say they weren't going to get involved in a voluntary process? Remember? ) Hence my comment that you're not recallable. But this is all irrelevant. You were asked to provide diffs, but your last two posts have focused on irrelevancy. That means this matter's closed, as far as I am concerned. The block stands, the BLP violation isn't there on the page any more, and you've accused yet another editor of bad faith. All par for the course, and everything is business as usual. We're done. You can have the last word, and then let's archive it. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

An update

Kay has not quit with her BLP violation-ating ways... see Special:Undelete/User_talk:Kay_Sieverding. She then deleted Risker's warning about it, which I restored, and followed up with a stern warning that she is about out of chances. I left the latest contribution though, at least for now. It may be time to cut losses here and just indefinitely block her and move on. Being the softie that I am, though, I'd probably let this block run out and see if by then she's gotten the drift yet. The wikiversity suggestion made in her RfC is a good one, perhaps there she could happily edit up a long instruction manual on how to self represent. But she already spurned that idea once. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

please update SVG file

I made an improved version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SVG.svg (visually almost the same, details neater now, file size down a lot, source bit more readable)

I temporarily put it at http://steltenpower.com/svg.svg (careful with case/caps) Please tell me at svg@steltenpower.com when you fixed it.

---

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if the world could just edit the SVG source code right on Wikipedia? Of course not allowing the edit if it's not valid SVG.

---

Thank you for your effort to improve Wikipedia. That image is hosted at Wikipedia Commons, their administrators' noticeboard is here. I also opened your image and at least in my browser (Firefox 3) the source now runs off the background page, which I would not consider to be an improvement. Thanks again for your interest and effort.  ★  Bigr Tex 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I get the same thing, but it looks like a simple font issue. Debugging images is a bit off-topic for the admin noticeboard, I realize, but I believe steltenpower could fix it by converting the text to a path (something you need to do to most SVGs when you put them on the Web). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, either convert text to paths or use the MediaWiki default, Bitstream Vera Sans. The latter is better when the look of the text is not so important as the information it conveys. Image:NYCS map A.svg is an example of this; it's easier to change text that way. --NE2 05:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Star Trek (film)

BillCJ (talk · contribs) left a really uncivil comment on the page accusing me of ownership with the article after working around the clock since, well September really, to clean-up cites and expanding in line with various good film articles, released and unreleased. Bill clearly doesn't want to discuss this any further, and apart from this he seems like a great editor (look at all those Barnstars), so I'm just concerned about him suddenly going on the warpath with the usual "fan" insult and brazen rudeness. Should I have just undid his comment which had nothing to do with improving the article regardless of his good past form? Alientraveller (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Per above, "These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour." BillCJ indicated that he is de-watching the article and the talk page and won't respond to comments about it. While probably uncivil, I think you should just archive the discussion and let it go, but I'll notify him anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, per this, I think we are done. Mark as resolved and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In otherwords, no Vulcan nerve pinch required. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix this

Resolved

 – all fixed by various edit-conflicting admins. Bencherlite^Talk 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User moved user talk page to article space talk page. -- Suntag ☼ 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And AFD closed as a WP:CSD#A7. --Rodhullandemu 16:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock problems

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

=== Unblock problems ===

Resolved

 – I've cleared the autoblock. –xeno (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can another admin take a look at User talk:Ceoil, and the associated thread on my talk page? I blocked Ceoil, originally for 72 hours, under the guise of disruptive editing. As it turns out, it was a mistake from a couple of guys joking around (apologies have been made all around), and I unblocked him after three minutes. However, it seems Ceoil still can't edit, and I'm not sure what the problem is. Tan | 39 15:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to hit refresh. Honest mistake by both of us, nothing more, and end of story. Sorry I swore at you Tanthalas39. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The background is this was a very bad block I was willing to let slide, but it seems that while it was an honest mistake, the blocking admin has no barrier to guide him between good and bad, I made peace (I thought)[4] after the situation was explained[5] and asked Tanthalas39 to acknowlege a misundterstanding by tweaking the block record with the summary "misunderstanding".[6]. Instead I am left with, permanantly "misunderstanding? I have misgivings - "prick", "twat", etc - but per JayHenry". Thats no small thing and will always be there as lond as I edit here. A huge disgrace, and highly highly offensive. Ceoil ^sláinte 16:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the 15:17, 18 October 2008 Tanthalas39 post summary[7] is not appropriate, you can post a request at Wikipedia:Oversight to have it removed. -- Suntag ☼ 17:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Ceoil is not looking at the time stamps properly. My initial block - while I thought he was harrassing JayHenry - quote his edit summaries (prick, twat). We determined this was two guys having fun, apologies were made all around (see his and my talk pages), and I did a one-second block where I clearly state is was a misunderstanding and that Ceoil did nothing to warrant the initial block. I thought we all made peace; I have no idea where this new animosity is coming from. Tan | 39 17:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't something oversight would mess with (I don't think they even could from a technical standpoint). John Reaves 17:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm incapapale of intreparing the diffs, or that I'm a liar. Its one or the other, and bear in mind I am basically accusing you of being a liar.[8]. Which it it. To reming you you followed unblocked "Ceoil (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (misunderstanding? I have misgivings - "prick", "twat", etc - but per JayHenry) with Explaining previous block. Misunderstanding based on "rivalry" with JayHenry. User did nothing to warrant previous 72-hour block only after I complained here. Fucker.

What the...? I was in the other room watching the Purdue/Northwestern game. I came back to see if you agreed with making another block, and walk into this? I wash my hands of this situation; I have done all I can. I still apologize for the first block - it was a misunderstanding, and JayHenry even agreed it looked like harassment on face value - but now I have to be subjected to "fucker"? I'm done with this. Tan | 39 17:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: after this edit, which I've reverted, I've blocked Ceoil for 3 days. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've deleted Image:Unknown-1236.jpg he uploaded for his userpage under a bogus PD-self claim. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We should never use bad words in log entries, especially in block logs. A bit of research would have prove easily that it was not harassing, and asking for clarifications when established users are involved is not so hard. I suppose the latest block is a 'cool down' one, however three days is a bit long, no ? You realize that all this has probably drawn away a long-standing, valuable editor, and all this situation could have been avoided with a little more common sense. Incivility is an issue, but have you noticed this MaxSem ? I also note that the user hasn't been warned for incivility before being blocked. I don't think this was helpful, nor justified. Cenarium ^Talk 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we have this discussions heading altered to something less colorful? GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil is blocked for 3 days for [9]?! That seems harsh. --maclean 20:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

MaxSem, is there anyway we can possibly revisit this? Ceoil is unequivocally one of the project's best editors. There are literally not a dozen editors of his value. As a joke, Ceoil and I would pretend to bicker with each other. With hindsight, my joke warning was a disastrous mistake. I didn't realize {{uw-preview}} could get out of hand so quickly, and I feel sick that this has happened. Max, I'm really pleading here. Anyone would be justifiably upset to get their block log marked up by this. And it's not Tanthalas's fault; it's mine. Believe me I am chastened. And Ceoil has a three year track record of just incredibly valuable contributions. Please take a look at his articles at WP:WBFAN. He's angry, and again, justifiably so--and ultimately at me, as I got him into this mess. The last thing in the world I want is to see him blocked for three days. Can I plead with you to lift this? I really can't state Ceoil's value to the project, and I do worry that every minute he's blocked for my actions, is a minute we risk doing damage to the project by discouraging him from coming back. --JayHenry (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody mind, if I altered the discussion heading? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen. I see from User:MaxSem's talk page that he seems to be gone for the week. Is there anyway we can revisit this block? Ceoil's no threat to the project, and the primary thing we're preventing now are his excellent contributions, as witnessed by his three year track record of researching, writing and working on some of the project's absolute best content. His anger at me was justifiable; it was a stupid joke I made that, when read out of context, led to this unfortunate scarring of his block log. For Ceoil to be blocked for three days for something that I did, is disheartening to him, no doubt, and ultimately not a productive use of blocking. I ask someone who cares about the content of this project as much as Ceoil did to look at his work, please consider his track record (he doesn't have a history that justifies a 3 day block for a single incident of justifiable anger at myself, about which I'm not upset), and that this whole episode started because of my actions, not Ceoil's. --JayHenry (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

His choice of colorful language may have been a reason for his blocking. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

3 days is excessive for a user like Ceoil. And it seems like MaxSem is now on a break. Blocking and running really doesn't work. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, you're right that he used colorful language but please let's consider this in context. I jokingly gave him a warning that he got blocked for. He has a right to very angry at me. It's like stubbing your toe. Your mad at the table you just stubbed it on, but you're likely to yell fuck at whoever walks by. Same thing here. I stubbed his toe, and some other people got caught in the crossfire. It's all my fault, and Ceoil really did nothing wrong other than have a reaction to my stupid action. He's one of the project's absolute best editors. And it's my fault his toe got stubbed, not his fault for having a nerve system, if that makes any sense. --JayHenry (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said (see below). It's up to the Administrators to decide. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. What exactly is the problem here again? Someone thought a user was harrassing another, so blocked them. They find out the block was a mistake, so undid it, and filled it with a 1 second block to make it clear that was the case. So, what's the issue now? Why is Ceoil so angry about this, and now calling Tanthalas "fucker"? I mean, it's just a block log. And three days was excessive for that. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That statement indicats to me that have no idea what is going on "How do you", and are better off out out of this discussion. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I know exactly what is going on. It was a rhetorical question, that I answered myself. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So is "prick" simiarly retoically. Unfortunatly it will always read be out of contect. I would never subject my self to a RFA, but just suppose I wanted to. Or supposed I care about what other editors cared after looking at my log? Im a "Prick". Ceoil ^sláinte 01:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say "Ceoil is a prick". And if you went for RFA, that can be explained. As you say you don't intend to, what's the issue? It simply says prick was a word you called someone else - and you did, jokingly to JayHenry. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(See above) - I'm guessing it's a civility block. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's up to the Administrators to decide, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty alarming that we lose two of FAR's three most prolific and valuable contributors, and arguably our top FA contributor (when adding FAs and FAR saves together) within days of each other because of unstudied admin decisions and heavy handed admin action. Something is really spinning out of control in the admin corp. Yannismarou and Ceoil are invaluable as content contributors; we have people pushing the block buttons without looking into the background (JayHenry and Ceoil have been goofing on each other's talk pages for as long as I can remember). Without these fellows, the FA tally will decline by one more per week that we wouldn't have lost with them. I'm afraid we have too many admins who just aren't in touch with article writing and content contribution. These losses don't bode well for the future of our best content. Maybe we do need forced once-a-year admin re-training. What a sad week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the fact that content contributions have anything to do with this. It's simply a misunderstanding, and Tanthalas was a bit quick to block. Ceoil's reaction "fucker" "fuck you" was out of order, whether he's good on FAR or not. Good content contributions isn't a get-out-jail-free-card for lack of civility. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we are all back from a 40 minutes block, aren't we ? Back to the subject, mistake indeed, but I know I would be quite angry if someone left some crude words for whatever reason in a log somehow related to me, even though I wouldn't express it this way. An incivility block without warnings, and then leaving is really bad form. The comments were 'out of order' yeah, but the second one has been modified. Nothing of this warrants a 3 day block. And we don't block as punishment. Cenarium ^Talk 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(Comes back from watching X-factor) You are right, of course. MaxSem shouldn't have blocked, and since he seems to have gone on a break (particularly bad idea) I would hope an admin would reverse this soon. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

From watching X-factor. ha ha ha. Well surprise surprise I being blocked and misunderstood by the likes of you. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, I was one who disagreed with your block. I have no idea what you mean by "likes of you". I was defending you. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of who is right or wrong, misunderstandings and incivility blah, blah, blah. Does the block of Ceoil serve any useful purpose? Of course it doesn't, so why is the block still in place, MaxSem's user page has this notice "I am not infallible. Regardless of any policies to the contrary, feel free to revert any admin actions I have performed if you believe them to be mistaken or unwise." Maybe another administrator will do the sensible thing and unblock. RMHED (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have unblocked, per comments above and absence of opposition. As this is my first 'real' unblock, I encourage other admins to review it. Cenarium ^Talk 22:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Though it's pretty clear the block was a bad one, you did comment above disagreeing with the block, so unblocking may not have been the most neutral thing to do. Could have been left up to an uninvolved admin. Just some thoughts. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you really should have waited until an admin who agreed with the block had a sudden funny turn and decided to unblock. Come on now, surely any admin who unblocks is by definition disagreeing with the block, let common sense prevail. RMHED (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they are also agreeing with the agreement here (i.e. consensus). It's not a big deal though. Just something to bear in mind next time. Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize it would have been best in an ideal situation. But I don't think the level of contention was high enough so that we needed to wait for a consensus and an uninvolved admin to review all this. I commented indeed, but was not involved previously. There is no such requirements for an unblock, policy makes also the case that when the blocking admin can't be reached and unblock is considered reasonable, there's no problem in doing so. Additionally, the statement at MaxSem's user page is quite unambiguous. Cenarium ^Talk 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Shall we mark this as resolved then? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. Ceoil still might have problems regarding his block log. Though there's nothing that any admin can do about that. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There are extensions allowing to remove entries from a log, they haven't been implemented on Wikipedia yet, though. Cenarium ^Talk 22:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The block log issue is mere vanity, not something we should concern ourselves with. John Reaves 22:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

vanity? Jesus fucking christ, I'm a person, I dont hide who I am and this record is peramenent. iys this flippancy that brings us here. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just think you're being overly sensitive about it. Must just be my personality. I know I wouldn't care. Since this isn't a constructive conversation, I see no need to pursue it. John Reaves 01:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Beg to differ. Perhaps if you knew the full history of Ceoil's block log, you'd understand why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves, if that's your opinion (and it is just that) then your best option is to filibuster any proposal to implement it. Everyme 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope the collateral damage that is accruing from AN and AN/I piling on (followed usually by quick archiving, where the issues get swept under the rug) is beginning to be noticed across the board. We lost Yannismarou a few days ago; Ceoil and Yannis have worked together, saving featured stars, for years. Some content contributors are justifiably on edge. JayHenry and Ceoil have joked on each other's talk pages for years, and the first unfortunate block (in error), added to the other frustrations, provide context for the rest of the incident. Please, a plea for more studied and careful admin decisions and discussions here, remembering that some editors do value their content contributions here and care what kind of "stuff" is written in their block log, in place of some hasty and unfortunate discussions we've been seeing lately at AN and AN/I. Ceoil's block log is irretrievably damaged now, and that is utterly unfair to someone who has contributed as much as he has (and I don't need to tally to know that when you add together FAC and FAR, he's number one). Once again, my plea that we need higher and even stricter standards at RfA, because the damage caused by this kind of escalation will affect content. Significantly. Take time to study the background and inquire around before hitting the block button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy, I don't buy the argument that stricter RFA standards make better admins. Some of the project's worst admins sailed through RFA without a problem at all (think Archtransit). There's nothing we can do to stop bad admin actions, because believe it or not, admins are human, and make mistakes :-) Making RFA stricter will be damaging to people who would possibly make excellent admins, but fail for trivial reasons. That's our loss then. How were you feeling in your recent nomination of Moni3, when he/she had all those opposes? Do you think that makes them a bad admin? Making RFA stricter won't remove mistakes. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a perfect reason to implement a process (OMFG WP:CREEP!!) to desysop not only in the most blatantly egregious of cases, but also e.g. where good-faith mistakes begin to accumulate. Not talking about Tan by any means, but there are those cases. Unfortunately, the most recent attempt to create such a process was shot down again by the status quo vanguard. Everyme 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, the log has an explanatory note, correct? I don't see how this damages anyone. John Reaves 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you replying to my comment? Everyme 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In block matters, progress can be made. Civility blocks on long-standing editors have often caused more harm than good. Requiring substantial warnings before blocking would help. Asking the user to take a break before that would be even better. There are two ways to make it "clearer" to admins: in MediaWiki:Blockiptext, and in the blocking policy. The blocking policy at the present reads: "A block for disruption may be necessary in response to: (...) *persistent gross incivility". Warnings are discussed in this section. However, there is no specific discussion on blocks of longstanding contributors. Those are rare, but they are the most heard-of, by far. Cenarium ^Talk 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also hope to see two things here: 1) do not archive this mess away until others have a chance to respond, that is happening all too often here, and 2) please restore the section heading that was here originally. It is utterly unfair for Ceoil's block log to include the words "prick", yet our ears and eyes are too sensitive for that word to be used here on AN/I. The irony is too hard to miss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The current header is inaccurate enough, since no one called Ceoil a "prick". -- How do you turn this on (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just call me nobody; ah, well. Enough admin drahmaz for one day. I guess someone will find time to write some articles for the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, me too. That's some fuzzy math Everyme. John Reaves 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. And your calling the changing of the section header "censor[ship]" is 100% accurate, according to your best judgement as based on the best of your knowledge. Everyme 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. I replied to your comments twice above, but you didn't respond. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, no need for drama on this. The original header was "Unblock problems", would someone object to restore it ? Cenarium ^Talk 23:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not nobody, I just overlooked your comment. At any rate, sorry Sandy that I didn't notice you objected the "censorship" — which I feel it isn't, it's just avoiding gratuitous strong language in the section title which could only serve to turn up the heat. I'm just a little model citizen, being concerned about civility as always (and nothing butt). Everyme 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• We can discuss changes to the blocking policy at WT:BLOCK. There is no point in letting the thread open now. Cenarium ^Talk 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, not really. Just wanted to add that I personally regard "fucker" as not such bad a word to call another user. "Non-fucker", which probably applies to roughly half of all Wikipedians (and that's a liberal estimate) would be far worse. Just my last 2 cents on this. Everyme 00:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... Hey wait, that wasn't funny. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to "How do you" futher above. Way to miss the point there boy. An honest mistake was made and it was no problem, and I asked that the block be tweaked to reflect this. Instead I was described as a prick, and the admin later tried to ungraciusly hide the fact. I can live with either a mistaken block or a misjudged summary, but this prick is denying cupability, and lied to me. So yeah, in responce i called him a "fucker". That is what he is from what I have seen. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Too Much Information... Anyway, why not just let it go at this point? Everyme 01:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed the whole point. It cant be let go! It will always be there. I have given how many hours to this website and now am a prick. And we should just let it go at this point? No he should be dysopped for multiple and (mis) calculated errors. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No one called you a prick, at any time Ceoil. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tan's block summary was not great, but he did not call you a prick, Ceoil. He was quoting you jokingly calling JayHenry a prick and twat. - auburnpilot talk 02:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Personally, I think you should just let this one slide, How do you turn this on: the comment in the block log read "misunderstanding? I have misgivings - 'prick', 'twat', etc - but per JayHenry". (Sorry for reposting it here, but there's enough bad language being thrown around to make reporting it for clarity less of a problem than normal). I wouldn't read that as saying that he was a prick, but I can see how someone else might reasonably see it differently. You may be right, but the real issue is that (in so far as the block log is concerned) Ceoil felt personally insulted by that summary, and we should respect that. I always make the assumption that if someone feels insulted or harrassed, then they are - even if the intent wasn't to do so, or if someone else wouldn't have felt (or read it) the same way. If there is more to discuss here then so be it, but the precise manner in which "prick" was used doesn't seem to me to be something worth focusing on now. - Bilby (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How Do You Turn This On, you correctly noted above that I hadn't responded to several of your earlier posts. I considered them off topic and a distraction, reflecting an incompelte understanding of the entire situation and typifying the very problems with ANI of which I speak. Since you are still going, and your posts here and elsewhere are risking rubbing more salt into Ceoil's wounds, and risking another upset, I am going to re-engage and try to say this as politely as I can. Please stop. You are not adding light; you are adding heat and exasperation. Please disengage from this thread; walk away, find something else to do. If you can't understand that having a block log that says "prick" is as hurtful to Ceoil as it would be to most of our excellent content contributors, then please try not to add to the frustration. Your posts to this thread and elsewhere are not helping calm the situation. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Aw hell, here we go again...ahem: SandyGeorgia, Yannismarou was an admin who escalated a minor edit conflict between himself and a well-intentioned newbie to the point of mutual incivility. When the user posted on ANI mentioning his WP:BITEy comments, he flew into even more of a rage and left several rambling, exclamation-mark heavy screeds about how the newb was messing with his work and got what he had coming. The newbie, who claimed to be a published expert in the field, immediately left the project in disgust. Please, please, please don't get that issue restarted. If he stays away until he can control his temper and not drive away inexperienced editors that he has minor edit conflicts with, everyone is better off. If that point is never, so be it. There should not be any 500-lb. gorillas or sacred Brahmas at Wikipedia. I don't think I want to volunteer on a Project that assigns a carte blanche to anyone with FA-experience that enables them to to run around slapping people with their belt buckles on public message boards when they get a bit pissy about something.

Ceoil is another excellent FA-level article writer, and one who had a legitimate and actionable complaint; he is also being blatantly and grossly incivil and refusing to get the point that the issue's been dealt with already. Only a dev can delete an edit summary, and unless things have changed, they only do it under exceptional circumstances, like personal info or gross libel in a blocksum. Tanthalas39 made a pretty big mistake, followed by a smaller one, which he publically admitted, apologized profusely for, and attempted to rectify as best the tools allowed. A corrective blocksum was left, officially absolving Ceoil of any fault...what else is there to talk about? Ceoil is a good editor, like Yannis was a good editor, but I'll be damned if I'll sit here mutely while editors toss craven personal attacks across the administrators' noticeboard just because they're angry. Part of being an adult is learning to control your anger, and part of being a good editor (or, god-forbid, an administrator!) is learning that yes, the rules really do apply to you too! Or they should, anyway. Some people seem awfully fond of making excuses for gross and obvious incivility from their friends while they demand indefblocks for incivility for editors they don't like. If you think calling an admin a "fucker" on the administrators' noticeboard after he just apologized to you is acceptable, you need to find a new Wiki to edit. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No no no. He made a mistake, we made an agreement to let it go, and then he deliberalty fucked me in responding to my request to tweak the block log. Thats no error - thats a 'deliberate sabatoage' of another editor's repurtation. Well, how hard is this to inderstand? Ceoil ^sláinte 02:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean this agreement from 16:15 ? Sadly, the problematic log entry [10] was issued at 15:17, when Tan still thought you were harassing JayHenry (3 minutes after the first block). Cenarium ^Talk 02:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This thread has all of the classics of AN and ANI's finest: memes get started, and repeated here with no basis in fact, and then a frenzy is whipped up, and someone ends up blocked. And who is asking anyone to sit here and ignore incivility, btw? This is what ANI threads do; put words at the ends of people's fingertips that were never typed, spread accusations with no diffs, and spread memes that sometimes have as much inaccuracy as fact. <sigh> Is it worth trying to swim against the tide of misinformation and asking the mob to think before they act? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What words that were never typed? What accusations with no diffs? What misinformation? Here's Ceoil calling Tan a liar and a fucker on AN 1, and here's him calling Tan a liar and a prick, also on AN 2, both of which were made after Tan's apology to him for improperly blocking him. Did I miss something? I was pretty sure we gave people blocks for that kind of thing. At least that's what the policy says... Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to reread policy, it says 'persistent gross incivility', and counsels, then warnings should be issued prior to a block. Cenarium ^Talk 02:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened here

User:Geogre/Comic. When will folks learn that we are here to write an encyclopedia, not play games with live people? There is a person behind that username. Don't block before you know what's going on, and not unless you are thoroughly convinced that a block will withstand review. Don't reblock if the person blows off steam about getting blocked. Every day another one of our top writers gets run off the project because of civility hysteria. It's a terrible shame. Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, alternately, we could draw a big, dark line in crayon that says "No cursing people out on AN, regardless of how mad you are or how many articles you've written" and then enforce it equally for everyone. But yeah, a stilted, factional, faux-meritocracy works well, too. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken AFD entry at Sanford_Holst

Resolved

 – OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I should know how to fix this but I don't. I used Twinkle by the way. The deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanford Holst is showing up as a red link, and when you look at the template via edit it says 'keep'. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's actually fairly common. It's not a problem with Twinkle or how you did anything. Sometimes it just takes a while for the MediaWiki software to catch up and realize that the AFD discussion page has actually been created and display it as a bluelink instead of a redlink. Purging the cache of the page with the AFD template on it fixes the problem too. If you'll look at Sanford Holst now you'll see that nobody has edited the article, but the discussion page is now a bluelink. Heh, unless I'm misunderstanding your problem. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Or just press the Refresh button in the browser. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It was actually someone else who mentioned it. Thanks for the explanations. Doug Weller (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Help regarding User.

Hi. I noticed User:Smiv's page included material that isn't exactly normal for a User Page. However, this is his only edit and I am unsure whether the page qualifies for an MfD. Can anyone assist? \ / (⁂) 02:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy is that users have considerable laxity over their own user pages; at present, all we can do is to assume good faith and that this editor is who he claims to be (although there is nothing to indicate a real-life identity), and if he wants to out himself, that is his affair. On the other hand, if the account is created as an attack, it is insufficently specific to be effective. I wouldn't worry unless disruption ensues. You may want to drop a {{ANI}}on his talk page, but I wouldn't expect much to follow. --Rodhullandemu 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I notice that this "new user" hasn't edited anything but his/her user page. I think this is just an attack page "mistakenly" created in "user" namespace instead of the main namespace (and I point out that if this was created in the main namespace, it would be deleted as CSD:G10 immediately), so I think that maybe the "G10" (attack page) CSD applies, anybody??? 131.111.223.43 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be logged out accidentally. Most IP editors are not more familiar with CSD criteria than I am. This page could match somebody's nickname and could rank first in Google, and could be an attack. It serves no useful purpose, so I suggest deleting it to be safe, but will not do so unless there is a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked the page. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, userpages are suppose to be useful Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I am genuinely a good-intentioned anon!!! (There are some, even if very rare.) All I wanted to say, that if the page with this content was created in the main namespace, then it would definitely be qualified for "attack page" (CSD G10). I also note that the new editor in question has not edited anything but his/her own user page. Well, there are many possible interpretations of this; I am most willing to assume good faith. Anyway -- none of my business -- sorry to bother you. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you know

Resolved

Can someone please update Did You Know, it's two hours overdue. Thanks very much! -- How do you turn this on (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Royalbroil (talk · contribs). Now resolved, thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw VI?

So.. Saw VI has been confirmed; details are Saw V#Sequel. Problem is that Saw VI, the article, has been salted since last August for WP:CRYSTAL. Can it be unprotected and linked? We're eventually going to have to create an article on it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that it would be salted as long as there hadn't been multiple attempts to recreate it. I see no such attempts. in the deletion log of the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The reasons appear to be explained in the AFD. In any event, per HelloAnnyong's reasoning, I've unsalted it. Note that RFPP is thataway, though, for future reference. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I think of RFPP for vandalism, but I guess this would have been something for them to do. I'll remember that for next time. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We also had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw VII already. No sightings for Saw VIII so far, though :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - the current relevant policy on future film notability will preclude an independent article until filming is confirmed to have begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed granting of Oversight to Jayvdb

The Arbitration Committee is considering granting Oversight access to:

• Jayvdb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  (also known on-wiki as "John Vandenberg")

Comments and impressions of an impartial and salient nature are invited from the community, prior to finalizing any decision, and may be submitted by email only to FT2 (email) or any of the members of the Arbitration Committee for circulation amongst the sitting arbitrators.

Users submitting their views should be prepared to discuss those views thoughtfully and carefully with Arbitrators. All people who e-mail FT2 will have their emails forwarded to the Arbitration Committee impartially, and exactly as written.

Please note that this is one of the most serious matters within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, and the final decision does therefore rest with the Arbitration Committee alone. The background to this post is below, in some detail, since many users are unfamiliar with Oversight. Please send any e-mails promptly, as we hope to make a decision within the next few days.

For the Arbitration Committee,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should give him back his ArbCom clerk position? --NE2 08:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I am busy enough without resuming that position of muck-mashing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Email sent to FT2 with my opinion. For transparency: I believe John to be very trustworthy, and believe his appointment would be an overall 'good move.' Anthøny (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mayalld

User:Mayalld seems to be on a crusade against Nepal-related article on English Wikipedia. He put {{notability}} tag on "Image Channel", a notable Nepali channel. When I removed the tag, he issued warning on my talkpage threatening block. He has also tried to harass User:Nepaliboy7. Can someone warn him? 202.63.240.6 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not - he rightly added the notability tag, which you then removed claiming that you were reverting vandalism - he reinserted it again, and you removed it again, so he rightly warned you not to remove maintenance templates without resolving the underlying problem. As for the allegation of harrassment, all I see is his nominating a number of related articles for deletion, and (correctly) informing the main contributors. I have left him a note (as you should have done) drawing his attention to this discussion, but I can't actually see that there's anything in his behaviour that even remotely merits a warning... _Gb^T/c 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and describing someone as a "jerk" is a bit of a no-no. _Gb^T/c 13:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Gb! I tagged Image Channel, having found an article that consisted of two lines of text, and was completely without sources. I searched for sources, and found nothing that appeared reliable. Indeed, everything that I found seemed to indicate that the channel was a very minor niche channel, that was only broadcast on satelite. As I hadn't reviewed all the sources, I tagged the article for notability. Twice that tag addition was reverted by the complainant here, complaining of vandalism. Twice it was returned (once by me, and once by another editor). If notability tagging unsourced one-line articles is vandalism, then I'm a bowl of petunias. If removing a notability tag from such an article isn't vandalism, then I'm Elvis!

I'm also not harrassing anybody, or on an anti-Nepal crusade. User:NepaliBoy7 appears to be on a mission to create articles about every two-bit beauty contest, and reality TV show (and their utterly non-notable contestants) in Nepal, and has been warned by a number of editors about his tenditious article creation. He seems determined to go on creating such articles. What would the complainant suggest other Wikipedians do. Does he believe that if somebody creates enough junk articles, we should let some stay, lest we be accused of harassment? Mayalld (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

John Olver

Opponents of politician John Olver seem to have had a free hand in the direction of his Wikipedia article since at least July 2008. Unfortunately, the article recently was in the news and it's less than accurate, now removed content was cited. I took a stab at fixing the article, but it would help if someone would place the article on their watch list, at least until the election is over. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 15:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist Colin Powell

Resolved

 – Now semi-protected I'm afraid. SoWhy 18:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping this article can avoid semi-protection. If you look at the anon edits over the last hour they're mostly pretty good. Let's all keep an eye on it, and try not to protect it, at least for the next few hours while things are developing quickly. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper off-wiki conduct by User:Alison on Encyclopedia Dramatica

Resolved

 – User blocked! Officer Barbrady: Move along, people. There's nothing else to see here. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am just posting this here to inform you that User:Alison, an oversighter, checkuser and administrator, has posted dangerous personal information about a banned user off-wiki. Alison, who also has many posts on the Wikipedia Review, has recently (and yes, it has been confirmed to be her) signed up for Encyclopedia Dramatica and is contributing there regularly with personal attacks against a certain banned user. Whilst I am in no way condoning the behavior of JarlaxleArtemis, which is highly deplorable and has included disgusting threats, the way that Alison has insulted this user by taunting him with his personal information shows a complete disregard for the exceptional level of community trust placed on people who handle sensitive data relating to oversight and checkuser functions. Here are some of the things she has said (and I am omitting where she has given the user's real name and personal info in edit summaries there, and bowlderizing when necessary):

• "F**k off, G***p, you pestilant little child"
• "G***p, will you quit this s**t. We all know who you are, and "[name redacted]" has to be one of the faggiest names I've ever encountered"
• "[first name] FREAKIN' [surname]'S 1" PIECE OF TWITCHING MANHOOD - lawl!"

Her contribs on ED can be found at [address redacted - some indication of malware (see below)]

Because of this, I would like to instigate a discussion over whether her checkuser and oversight tools could be removed as she appears to have abused the trust that the community has put in her, and if she's willing to insult people with their private, non-public personal information on another website, there is no reason to believe she is trustworthy with the data she has the priviledge of access to in her position as a checkuser and more particularly an oversighter.--African Violin (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this about the anon who's been threatening Alison? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is African Violin's fifth contribution. D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but it's African Violin's last contribution. Blocked as trolling-only account. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Seems that Grawp would never leave Wikipedia in peace for a moment... BUT, as Porky Pig would say: "A-ba-lee, a-ba-lee, gnat's all folks!". XD ...Dave1185 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is about Grawp. Nothing to be concerned about. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was just reaching for a tag..._Gb^T/c 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a checkuser report from ED proving that this is Alison, right? ;o) Resolute 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He just posted an unblock request--since this is more than likely Grawp/Jarlaxle, I locked his talk page down and redirected it to his userpage. Blueboy96 18:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Grawp-a-like! Nice try .... :) That may be my account, or it may not. Nobody seems to know - not even the great Grawp. Still, if there has been any publication of privacy or checkuser-related information over there, someone will surely provide diffs .... right? - Alison ^❤ 18:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bahahahaha nice one grawp, thanks for the lulz.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This failed so hard even 4chan doesn't want it. :D -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What a waste of a fine username... bibliomaniac15 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Two words. Guys, it's one of the weirdest applications of BADSITES that I've ever seen. In an astounding moment of bass-ackwardness, a vandal comes to ANI to complain about an admin saying mean things on Encyclopedia Dramatica. In Soviet Russia, vandals complain about you! - Alison ^❤ 04:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I have personally redacted large quantities of personally identifying information on JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp from enwiki. Grawp has never requested information be oversighted on enwiki, though he could if he wanted. Note also, that this deletion review from last week was set to overturn until I requested it stay deleted in deference to Grawp's own privacy. The person closing the DRV (Spartaz) commented, "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis – Since this was nominated on the basis that the page may be useful to coordinate crosswiki responses to Grawp and given that Alison has confirmed that this is not necessary and cited the privacy policy I'm going to call this as no consensus to undelete". Rather than complaining, it might be nice to just say "thanks" every so often, y'know? - Alison ^❤ 05:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Next thing you know they'll be knocking at your home door asking to have a little chat, or threatening to go to the "authorities". Or worse, maybe they'll even start calling your boss at work asking to get you fired or threatening you with bodily injury. No matter the many assumptions, which I think are way overboard, (just like this whoever put in this silly request), I believe there's a fine line that must be respected in between different organizations, and eventually real life. I trust it won't go too far in real life, but if they do start to harass you, I know a friend in Russia that works for the Hells Angels, they can go have a chat with them too and even put a bomb on their car if they start really harassing you. --CyclePat (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had all of the things you mentioned above as a result of my work on Wikipedia (well, they didn't find my home, but showed up at my workplace). I'm still here and since the last guy was sent back to jail, I got prepared. So I'm not worried, trust me - Alison ^❤ 07:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] -By the way, I strongly urge people not to visit that link posted by the grawp/troll/sock who posted this report. I think it leads to malware (so said my Norton). Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bahaha, thats the cherry on top. The link is harmless however i find it amusing how ED is classified as malware   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, really, something tried to shove a download down my throat. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NCL, the same thing happened to me. There was definitely something there, but my AV knocked it down. Dayewalker (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't how web browsers work... unless you are using Internet Explorer. BJ^Talk 10:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, please delete the damn link, it grabbed my computer and yes I have IE and serious security. I didn't understand what was going on until it was too late, stupid me. My husband is still having to work my computer today since he still hasn't gottem all the malware gone. He found 5 copies of it yesterday and Norton is still screaming that there is more to be taken care of. So please oversight it or whatever to remove it from the site so others, like me that don't know much about computers don't get bit. This is a nasty malware! I am using my husband's laptop for the first time and it's weird to use. Thanks in advance for removing it, and knock yourselves out with the jokes that I did this, I deserve it for my stupidity plus right about now I could use some laughs. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefox. BJ^Talk 11:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's everyone-make-fun-of-the-clueless time. I followed a link from Wikipedia Review to ED not long ago and ended up having to restore my system to an earlier version to get rid of the resulting junk. Ha, ha, what a sap! Deor (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefox with noscript and ABP will be way more efficient than IE and Norton to protect you from malwares. AVs are needed when a malware is in but are bad at prevention. Use a non-administrator or temporary session if you want more security. I've been on ED a couple of times and had no problem. Though I surely don't advise to use ED in IE, or registering there if you don't want your IP exposed.   Cenarium ^Talk 13:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Poll on removing admin rights

Wikipedia talk:Removing administrator rights/Proposal#Straw poll. There's a straw poll on a proposal to give crats the power to remove admin rights. People might want to comment.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus issue

Per discussion here and here, some of the editors believed that consensus existed to change the film infobox. A protected edit request was made, but there has been some concern that the admin has misread the consensus. Any fresh eyes willing to look this all over would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell

Resolved

Can someone unprotect it, vandalism is not excessive and it seems like a populer article atm.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A popular article for his recent endorsement of Obama, yes. But the attention is mostly in the form of vandalism. Semi-protection seems like a good idea. Grsz^Review! 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please use WP:RFPP to request unprotection of articles in future. As for this case, I agree on the assessment of the protecting admin, vandalism is heavy on this article at the moment. Regards SoWhy 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We are on the verge of a dubious milestone

I just happened to check on the list of blocked User:MascotGuy socks and that list is showing a total of 990 blocked socks in a four-year period. There's no doubt we'll be hitting the magic 1000 mark in a week or two. There have been checkusers galore and yet this unsupervised child and his dynamic IP continue to pop up every so often and wreak havoc on the same basic list of articles. It's clear that the Foundation isn't interested in taking action, but it seems to me that simply blocking the dozen or so keywords and phrases he's placed on every sockpuppet name, this case can be solved or at least abated somewhat. There should also be a modification to this site's basic software which prevents logged-on users from creating new accounts. That's his MO. He creates one account which he uses to make several more. He's been quiet for a couple of days, but I fear it's only a matter of time before he sneaks online without his mommy's knowledge and start in again on his never-ending litany of cartoon subjects. If the Atomic Betty, Wilbur Hardee and Eloise: The Animated Series articles were on paper, he'd have worn out that paper a long time ago. I strongly believe that four years of this kid's antics are quite enough and something drastic needs to happen. I even tried to get him to agree to allowing me to tutor him, but in all this time, he has yet to place a single keystroke on a talk page. I'd welcome your comments. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And why was he originally blocked? --CyclePat (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And why should we "advertising this"? Have you ever heard of do not feed the trolls. Maybe this is a search for fame of some sort? And in the worst case, maybe it's not just the sock-puppet that is looking for fame but a little bit of the admins ourself that want to get notoriety. Let me say this once. NO! It's not a good idea. Simply put, from an outside point of view, without any involvement what so ever (I bet, I just got 5 paranoid admins to do a check-user on me!), this sounds like an example of bad Dispute Resolution or management on behalf of administrators; a lack of complacency to do what I formally use to call Associate Members Advocacy. --CyclePat (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And what could admins do other than RBI? MascotGuy has in the past used a vastly dynamic IPs, which means effective rangeblocks would also block a couple of cities as collateral damage. But to the topic in hand, does anybody know whether a checkuser has been done since IPBlock exempt become available? Other than that the only thing I could think of would be trying to convince his parents to get a static IP. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this account isn't a matter of "fame" or even malice on the part of this individual. He was blocked primarily because of inaccurate and totally bogus information with a smattering of truth thrown in, not to mention a complete lack of interaction with other users. By no malice, I mean that one of his original sockpuppets early on in the game (mind you, this is four years ago) was named after his mother's e-mail account. Under my previous username, I actually made successful contact with this boy's mother via that e-mail address. She told me that he was autistic and she tried to limit his time spent online due to her rightful fear of predators. I was unable to make any further contact. What we have here is a young man in his late teens living in a fantasy world and, quite possibly, trying to help in his own strange way. When he was nicknamed "MascotGuy" by another user, this individual seems to have taken it as a compliment and uses he suffix "Guy" on quite a few socks. If not for my one-time contact, it would seem like we're dealing with a very determined troll when in fact we're dealing with a special needs kid with a dynamic IP and a skewed vision of what this site is about. In short, this is a special case IMO which needs special handling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with blocking the keywords he uses in most of his account names - I severely doubt it would in any way stop him, and right now having a short list of likely names makes noticing his socks much, much easier. ~ mazca ^t|c 06:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with that suggestion: it's hard to imagine that he would see that his preferred username could not be registered and react by simply giving up and going away. Is it reasonable to hope that such an astonishingly persistent individual could be deterred by something so trivial? Furthermore, this would affect many other users, because you're talking about common words like "guy". I suspect there is no technical solution to this problem (beyond the "revert, block, ignore" cycle), but perhaps his mother could be contacted again and notified that her son is still regularly damaging Wikipedia after four years. Realistically, I can't see anything else that would work. Everyking (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've been informed that we are well past the one thousand mark. Not all of the blocked socks have been arichived or tagged as blocked. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I heard that his mother responded. I have an idea: "If Mascotguy is unable to civilly abide by Wikipedia's rules, his mother needs to be at his side when he edits Wikipedia. She should guide him and/or change his words whenever possible. If he acts uncivilly and/or violates policies he may be blocked." Perhaps Mascotguy and his mom could be an editor team working under one name, with his mother there to ensure that he follows policies. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This woman has not replied at all since the initial contact. Is he really on that dynamic a system that we could not try to work with the ISP or simply block the range so where he cannot access Wikipedia at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While a dynamic IP is obviously a problem, surely if he's exclusively editing from home it will all be through a particular ISP? Perhaps working with that ISP to contact his parents could prove profitable, and if not a rangeblock (anon, account creation blocked) could be considered - if his edits do make up a substantial proportion of the traffic from that ISP, it could be necessary to require legitimate users from it to go through the account-creator system. But yeah, a sticky situation. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We can block fragments from usernames using the title blacklist but I agree with the foregoing that this would be a nuclear option. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but perhaps the new must-have accessory for Wikipedia trolls will be the mother who takes part in a brief email correspondence detailing the reasons (Asperger's, autism, whatever) for that editor's disruption. The editors, mothers, and emails in this post are fictitious and any resemblance to real editors, mothers, or emails is pure coinkydink. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, having dealt with MascotGuy a few times myself, I wouldn't go too far in believing that was his mother. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, Gwen. Ditto Sheffield Steel. If we assume you're right, then what we do have is someone with some real mental issues who treats this as an occasional game. The last thing I want to do is put this site on some sort of slippery slope toward more creative vandalism than what we're currently facing. It's just that the problem has gone on for far too long and it hasn't been handled directly with the ISP. I've raised my voice to the foundation and nothing has been done of which I'm aware. Until it does, all we can do is tag and bag. Another thought: On the assumption he's treating this as a game as evidenced by some of the links to damage he's done to other sites (up to and including the claim that his mother beats him and he vandalizes this site as a result), perhaps it's time to remove the long-tern abuse and discussion pages relating to the guy. He's on a world stage and he knows it. I think it's time to start to bring down the curtain one way or another. Thanks for the feedback. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Has the ISP been contacted? Behavior like this probably violates their terms of services. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for iframe assistance from sysop

I would like to add the following iframe to my user page and to the article Ottawa.

<iframe src="http://free.timeanddate.com/clock/i18xuati/n188/fn2/fs16/ftb/tt0/tw1/tm1" frameborder="0" width="303" height="25"></iframe>

http://free.timeanddate.com/clock/i18xuati/n188/fn2/fs16/ftb/tt0/tw1/tm1

This page says that "CSO_iFrame is secure if the page is protected; so, only a wiki adminstrator with Sysop privileges can modify it." The proper extension for this MediaWiki code is now http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/CSO_iFrame_tag_and_extension. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Though there is a Mediawiki extension dealing with iframes, it is not enabled on Wikipedia and is unlikely to be enabled do to the potential abuse risks, sorry. Dragons flight (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you. I understand. (In this case it's perhaps to bad... but in general I can understand, even from a non-technical point of view where someone might add links to porn or other nasty pop-up stuff.) --CyclePat (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RMHED blanking pages under claim of BLP

RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently blanked a number of pages on well-known holocaust deniers and other living people on WP:BLP grounds,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] claiming that they are poorly sourced. This follows WP:PROD-ing a number of unsourced BLPs, most of which have been reverted. Some believe that the editor is going too far.[22]

The editor claims to operate on a theory that all unsourced material in a BLP is inherently contentious[23]. However, that seems plainly at odds with BLP. If that that the case BLP would be quite brief - it would simply say "delete everything about a living person that is uncited" and we all go home. In reality BLP includes in its preamble (but does not define) as "contentious" material that is "positive, negative, or merely questionable". Much of what the editor is neither negative nor positive, and is not reasonably questionable either because it is well sourced, is obvious or readily verifiable, or is well-accepted or uncontroversial. Opposing a claim on procedural grounds having to do with citation links does not make the claim itself questionable. Others would disagree about policy, and clearly support RMHED's interpretation that everything unsourced is fair game[24].

Although sourcing is a debatable point bigger than a single AN/I thread, the wholesale blanking of pages is potentially disruptive so I propose that we discuss the matter sooner rather than later. The problem is really the edits, not the theory behind them. I'm bringing it here as a stopgap in hopes that we ask RMHED to put some thought into the matter rather than playing the human BLP-bot. Many or of the claims he is blanking are sourced, but not in typical style. There are articles that claims inline that so-and-so published book X in which he said Y, or that A claims B about C, than person N is in rock band O that released album P, or that Q "hit the headlines" over incident R. Those are all in fact sourced claims, but simply not in approved Wikipedia footnote format. A quick google search would easily find the actual citation links for these claims in most cases. Further, much of what is in fact unsourced is uncontentious. If we don't address this, there's a risk of losing a significant chunk of holocaust-related material for now, and whatever section of our encyclopedia RMHED wants to pacman-chomp next. If editors oppose this we may get into edit wars over BLP versus claims of blanking/vandalism. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance his removals look perfectly proper. Indeed good stuff. Any suggestion that someone is linked with holocaust denial needs cast-iron sourcing and if such is not there the claim and any implication of it needs immediately removed. Anyone wanting to put it back needs to properly source it. Give the man a barnstar.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for this?[25] Please don't encourage it. BLP is meant to improve the encyclopedia, not destroy it. But again, most of the material deleted was of the form "X said Y in book Z".Wikidemon (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a barnstar for that. If you want to replace it, find some good secondary sourcing. That is exactly what BLP is for.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Scott, especially on the Carlo Mattogno article. I don't think we should be condoning articles where the entire content is a bunch of descriptions about the person (especially such negative ones) based on the fact that another wiki wrote them a while ago. We should be having sources of our own. WP:BLP seems clear to me: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable - should be removed.... "-- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous and offensive. Carlo Mattongo is obviously a significant holocaust denier. Please spend five seconds on google finding the sourcing that is in the blanked article. The point of BLP is to protect Wikipedia from legal liability and avoid undue harm to living individuals, not to facilitate holocaust denial (which is a much greater harm, incidentally). Wikidemon (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

First, why is he "obviously" a significant holocaust denier? There are 80 people in Category:Holocaust deniers right now. Are all of the living ones obviously deniers as well? While I don't agree with the hit-and-run blanking, I did the same thing to John Gudenus here which had a source that no longer existed (and probably wasn't on point). If you can find sources, provide them into the articles (as I did). The fact that you feel that these articles are special and those facts don't require sources is an issue. BLP should be applied universally, if it is going to applied at all. It's not like he's blanking David Irving -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"Obvious" to you is not good enough. The point of BLP is to prevent harm by prohibiting poorly sourced critical material on any living individual. You want negative stuff - the onus is on YOU to source it properly, not on the BLP enforcer. The minute we caveat such protections for living people with "except people we decide beforehand are not worth it" we open a dangerous door. There are no untermensch with BLP - no exceptions because we decide they are vile people who don't get rights. We protect one, we protect all. That's the essence of it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you're talking about legal liability, wrongly accusing someone of holocaust denial is grounds for a pretty strong libel case: your source has to be absolutely bulletproof if you're going to do so. If it's so obvious, go out and find a good, reliable source, and then add it to the article. BLP always applies - it doesn't matter who someone is. Ale_Jrb^talk 11:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get silly on the BLP kool-aid. I'm not stupid and no onus is on me. No, my argument is not to advocate that "don't deny the holocaust" is more important than BLP. If you read my post it is about the misuse of BLP for "hit-and-run" blanking, as Ricky81682 puts it. The editor I mentioned may be setting out on that course. Eleven articles today on the holocuast. Perhaps a hundred tomorrow on some other subject, perhaps baseball or automotive design? Better to deal with this before it becomes a blow-up. It goes to the "five seconds on google" comment. The only contentious claim in the article is the summary/lead statement that Carlo Mattongo is a holocaust denier. That's where the editor's WP:POINT is strongest but even there one can solidly meet the challenge. To claim the rest of the article is a BLP violation that has to be deleted to the point where it reads simply "Carlo Mattongo is an Italian" is ludicrous - why not delete "Italian" as an unsourced cultural slight, and "is" as metaphysically uncertain? Back to the lead, it's normally perfectly fine to summarize a person's main claim to fame without a source because the lead is the summary of the article, not independent material. The article, which is sourced, establishes clearly that Mattongo's main claim to fame is that he is a holocaust denier. How else can one interpret an author whose main literary output is a series of books, and articles in holocaust revisionist journals, saying Auschwitz is a myth, nobody was gassed, the alleged "eyewitnesses" are liars, etc. But yes, an especially strong claim in the lead ought to be sourced even if it's clearly established in the article. If the article's inline attributions aren't enough, a few moments of googling instantly reveals a breathtaking array of holocaust denial in Mattongo's own words, on holocaust denial websites, and on websites devoted to combatting holocaust denial. Blanking these articles without bothering to spend a few minutes verifying them is pretty close to vandalism. 90-95% of the material that was blanked is sourced or simply not controversial - that he published a given book? That he lives near rome? That he knows Latin and Hebrew? I didn't write that in the first place. If I did I would have sourced them properly. But as an editor and reader of Wikipedia, it is not my job to single-handedly repair all the damage by chasing after every half-cocked WP:POINT someone is making by mindlessly deleting content. If someone wants to go on a rampage in a china shop, it's fair to bring up the commotion on a notice board rather than running ahead of the vandal clearing the shelves of dishes. Blanking entire articles is an extreme interpretation of BLP, and something that ought to be taken up at an administrative level before it blows up into a serious problem.Wikidemon (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you obviously don't understand the BLP policy. BLP demands proper sourcing for claims - sourcing that all the articles he blanked lacked (and he didn't actually blank them). It is not good enough to say "the sources are there if you google". What you call "a bull in a china shop" is exactly what we want people to do. If you see unsourced or poorly sourced critical material, then remove it. All of it, and immediately. The onus is on those who want it replaced to do the googling, not the remover. Calling people doing what we ask them to do "almost vandals" is wrong, unhelpful, and verging on a personal attack. No WP:POINT has been made here, since wikipedia was not disrupted, but improved by the enforcement of one of our more important policies. That's the non-disruptive point that you are failing to get.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand BLP policy just fine. In the past I contributed to making that policy. You seem to share the editor's interpretation of BLP, which is fine. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I brought the issue here for discussion. Back to the subject, the material is sourced in the article. That's the issue. 90-95% of what is removed is not unsourced and/or not controversial. And regarding the other 5-10% BLP is not about deleting all unsourced material, it is about deleting "contentious" unsourced material. The only place where you may have a point is the single claim, that the author is a holocaust denier - something best fixed by a five second google search, not disrupting an article. As for the rest, that author X published book Y is not contentious. Stubbifying an article to say "'''Carlo Mattogno''' (born in 1951 in [[Orvieto]], [[Italy]]) is an Italian {{DEFAULTSORT:Mattogno, Carlo}}" is pointy blanking. What about that are you not getting? We had the same fight a year ago over WP:NFCC and WP:TRIVIA. Running around the encyclopedia blanking things because you think you are doing the work of the Foundation is a big mistake and turns into huge Wikidrama - constant AN/I threads, de-sysops, arbitration cases, WR fodder. Best to keep cool and edit rationally. Wikidemon (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So, source the material and replace it, if it is that easy. It only leads to "constant AN/I threads" because people start them. So, don't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That seems to contradict the lede of BLP; "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately ...". As in, it says "removed immediately", not "removed after doing a Google search to ascertain if it true or not". ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 11:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please direct the "source material" comment to the one who is blanking articles. My commenting on these articles does not mean I own them. Again, that's the same issue with NFCC and TRIVIA. I don't have to find sources for fifty thousand images or two hundred pop culture articles to point out that people are going about it the wrong way. Regarding the BLP preamble, the "should be removed immediately" is a bit of Jimbo's trademark hyperbole and not a realistic editing suggestion. But that's not the point. Again, most of the blanked material was sourced and not contentious.Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If I can make a suggestion

The point is not to undermine BLP or pit it against anything else, merely to note what may be harm to the encyclopedia from its overzealous application. When deleting seeming BLP violations it is always best to be civil, precise, and helpful. One can pick any of the eleven cases in point but Carlo Mattogno has been the most discussed here. It would have been far better to replace Italian "holocaust denier" with Italian "author" or "writer about the holocaust" or something neutral, with an edit summary of "per BLP, a claim like this should be sourced." And it would have been better not to delete uncontroversial claims like that the author published a book, studied Latin, or lives near Rome. Beyond that, BLP permits deletion but doing the bare minimum of what policy permits does not make good editing. It is far better to improve than break weak material. Nearly everything deleted from the articles has a source, or is sourceable. Low effort article policing is fine on a case by case basis, but when it becomes a big campaign across many articles, it can be a big problem. A single editor on a policy enforcement roll can in ten minutes create a day's clean-up work for more careful editors, and that work often doesn't get done for weeks or months. Article cleanup is done with a broom and a mop, not a fire hose.Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Various points of varying length:

• Carlo Mattogno would have been a valid WP:CSD#G10 tagging.
• "Sources can be found" and arguments of this nature are over-simplistic, and ignore the responsibility this places on the editor doing the BLP clean up.
• Simply sourcing the contentious statements in a biography is utterly inadequate and completely misses the point - I have summarily deleted a number of well-sourced BLPs in which I had no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements made. Verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
• The editor editing outside his/her area of expertise may legitimately feel very uncomfortable putting his/her name to any edit to a contentious BLP when they do not feel qualified to judge the neutrality of the article, regardless of what they can source. Yet, when the alternative of not editing the article would be clearly unacceptable, deletion or sub-stubbing are the only reasonable options.

CIreland (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

G10?? This is an encyclopedia. Editors who want to help should probably concentrate their efforts where they know what they are doing. Not knowing what you are doing is fine on an article-by-article basis, but not when hacking away entire families of articles on important subjects. Wikidemon (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Every editor is asked to help the project by removing unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from BLPs. You don't have to understand the field, or be willing to contribute to the article. If you see material that's negative and the sourcing looks wobbly, remove it. Someone who knows something about it can replace it with sourcing later. However it is always better that we exclude such material until and unless someone is willing to sort it. The subjects of wikipedia's biographies are living people - and wikipedia can have real life damaging consequences where we get it wrong. Excluding all poorly sourced allegations is really the least we can do.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with what ahs been said so far in this thread, BLP is a bright-line urgency focused policy. It requires immediate removal and places the bar for re-insertion on finding sources. It is not a "lets leave it in while we debate it" situation, it is a "remove it until we are sure it can be included" situation. MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is really strange

Resolved

 – All is well.

What is this IP doing: [26]? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reasonable editing? WilyD 12:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Huggling, by the looks of things, and doing it perfectly well. I didn't think you could use Huggle without an account though, which is the odd part. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• A good job? Seriously, all they have done is revert a bunch of vandalism. Isn't it generally a Good Thing ^TM for people to remove vandalism when they find it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The seven edits I looked at were all reverts of vandalism (although one carelessly reverted back to more vandalism). Taken altogether, I think it's helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits are helpful, though how an IP is using Huggle is odd. Wizardman 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Behold the pros and cons of open source software . Awesome though. — CharlotteWebb 13:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, since Huggle is just an external browser with some fun extra stuff, couldn't it just be modified to work without the .css extension in ones account? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not hard to modify the source for Huggle (and AWB for that matter) to not check for logged in status or the existence of the huggle.css page but I always thought Huggle used rollback to revert the edits? Now I guess not. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The main point is that, while this use of huggle may be slightly sketchy, the IP is doing good work, so I see no impending doom. If he were using Huggle in some ultimately destructive way, that would be one thing, but really, where there is no harm to the encyclopedia, there is no foul... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no point in punishing this user for using Huggle in a useful way, but the security should really be upped. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I (cynically) suspect that most of the moral panic is in the order of "they shouldn't be doing this because we have no way to take away their rollback when they abuse it". Sure we do, just block the son of a bitch if they don't knock it off. Let's remember this thread next time somebody yells "OMG plz subtract their user-rights" every time there is a complaint about a logged-in user using huggle/twinkle/fickle/boggle/smuggle/wrinkle/flügel/scroogle/wriggle/burgle/shruggle/bugle/sniggle/fondle/juggle/gaggle/AWB/whatever abusively. — CharlotteWebb 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You mis-spelt Buggle SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Edits speak louder than. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is odd seeing an IP REMOVING vandalism, rather that causing it. I applaud their efforts, we need a lot more users like this doing this kind of work. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's quite common to see a passing-by IP removing vandalism. Many of them do not know how to find the undo button, though, and remove only part of the sillyness. – Sadalmelik ☎ 13:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just someone who was using huggle, got logged out and didn't notice. It's happened to me once --Chris 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that still happen with the current versions of Huggle? I think rollback is now required for reverting -- it's a different link from undo/normal editing, and I'm not sure if there is a fallback mechanism anymore. Of course the IP could have been using an older version of Huggle. – Sadalmelik ☎ 13:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Only to remind, almost half the IP edits I see on my watchlist are helpful, often very much so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that entirely though it's very easy to get into a "IP=vandal" mindset (I know I do sometimes). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

Given that things have changed a lot since 2006, people have retired, harassers have gotten more diligent, etc, I'm planning to run a roll call of Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks to ask the admins listed if they would re-add themselves if they want to remain on the list. Any objections? MBisanz ^talk 16:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you're doing it by email, mine is flaky at the moment; so I'll say here that my "Aye" to this category is still the same. Black Kite 18:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  Actually I was going to leave a message on user talk pages, any opinions on email v. user talk? MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Usertalk would probably be better, actually - you'd get a better idea of who's active. Black Kite 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You could just remove any admin who is on the inactive admins list, and leave them a note telling them so. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is viewable through the above link.

Jossi and MZMcBride are both separately admonished for their conduct in this matter—the Sarah Palin wheel war—and are warned that any future, similar actions are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of their administrator privileges.

The community is strongly urged to continue ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons regarding how the BLP policy and its enforcement can be further improved.

Additionally, all parties to this case are instructed to review carefully the principles and findings of fact which were also passed in this decision (click to read), and to adjust their conduct and future behaviour accordingly.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)