Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive248

Trojan Horse Virus stealing passwords and codes launched from WP Sandbox – WP Users safety compromised – Wikipedia security concept flawed

Complicity of left wing Bullies: allowed to monopolise economics pages – Thousands of tilels vandalised – WP neutrality compromised.

Extreme left users like User:El_C... openly claim discretion over the WP blocking policy on the administrators notice board.

False accusations spread over tens of talk pages. Abuse of Wikipedia credability to damage reputation of adversaries in google searches - WP trustworthiness compromised

Qualified intimidation of disliked newcomers – Users privacy disclosed – Hundreds of bona fide contributors scared away

Large scale cover-up operations – systhematic vandalism on talk pages.

User:Advocates-For-Free-Speech unveil scandal, get silenced and indefinately blocked

-

Call on bona fide admins to intervene and stop criminal gang taking over key admin positions and WP content

--Advocates Defending Free Speech 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this just isn't convincing without more capital letters. Friday (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the board. Is this a kind of trolling? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this user constitute some sort of legal threat? There are official advocacies that users can use. I would think that this user, and any users they are "defending" in a "legal case" should be blocked per

WP:LEGAL. Wikipedia is not a "free speech zone", it's an encyclopedia. Want free speech? Go start your own blog. They're free. - Crockspot

15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a group account and banned-user sockpuppet [1]. --Dynaflow babble 15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd have speedily archived this, but it is so funny I decided to leave it for a bit :-) Guy (Help!) 15:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed a chuckle today. This is just the thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The parrot is particularly entertaining. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ROFL at title of this thread. WjBscribe 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, can all bone fide admins line up over here, please? Rouge admins will have to leave the room while we talk ;) - Alison ☺ 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• His links return error messages. They've obviously been oversighted by the Cabal. ;-) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No specific action to be taken. The issue is being discussed and dealt w/ (part of the

See: [5]; Jeff was blocked by admin User:Zsinj with the stated explanation (on User talk:Tony Sidaway) of:

Per approximately two hours of IRC discussion, it had been determined that the disruption caused by that user outweighed any efforts to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. The amount of drama and all around chaos that has come as a result of his actions and the resulting actions of others caused is a disruption and an exhaustion of the community's time, as noted in the block reason. As one of many administrators, others have been in contact with the user and have taken actions that you described, such as warning the user. This issue is no longer a single admin's responsibility, nor is it the responsibility of the community as a whole. While I am not suggesting that this is elitist, it is the responsibility of all administrators, of which there has been consensus, to act when events like this occur to prevent any further damage to the project. Zsinj 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Gaillimh unblocked shortly afterwards.

Also this comment by User:Mackensen: [6].

Let's not do that again, shall we? Georgewilliamherbert 02:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This block was a very bad idea. Mackensen said it all, really. --Deskana (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This "explanation" was the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read. Don't play with your buttons when you're drunk, kids! --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If we throw a stick, will irc go away? Friday (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC is a brutal double-edged sword. Sean William 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I will give in to the temptation just this once: What. The. Fuck? Johnleemk | Talk 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lolz, so between bots flooding and people talking about Shrek 3 and the Spur's game, this decision was made. Two hours of discussion, wonderful. It would be nice if those others involved would step forward. — MichaelLinnear 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Not that it matters in the end anyway. This is an example of why decision making on IRC is bad- it is not representative of the community's wishes. --Deskana (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem fair to have one person take the blame for a bad group decision. — MichaelLinnear 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the block rationale neglected to address the potential disruption of the block itself. Gasoline on the fire. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree that this was horribly, horribly out of line. I don't like BDJ myself, but this was, as Johnleemk said, a real "WTF" moment. Something of this magnitude should not be done without on-wiki discussion, no matter how long the IRC discussion is.

On the other hand, #wikipedia-en-admins is a genuinely useful tool. I know that I've used it to get quick advice from other admins on what to do in situations where I don't feel a whole

Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

02:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This chills me considerably. I have no doubts whatsoever that Badlydrawnjeff is acting in good faith, and that any percieved disruption by him could be viewed by other editors as attempting to improve the encyclopedia. It greatly disturbs me that a block can be a result of a discussion on IRC, where not all editors have access to and which is not a valid means of gauging community support. Without being committed to either side of the ongoing dispute at the RFC, I feel compelled to comment here because of the potential far reaching effects of this action on any editor on Wikipedia who may espouse an unpopular or contentious viewpoint and attempt to use the established channels to try to resolve a dispute.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocks of this nature aren't normally decided on IRC; this is the exception more than the rule. I wouldn't worry about it too much, Xnuala. BDJ is now unblocked and no harm was done in the end. --Deskana (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm? Utterly ridiculous. --Irpen 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking another user in the middle of being involved with a dispute with them is a HUGE no-no. If it comes out that involved parties in the dispute were responsible for this, someone ought to lose a sysop bit. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is rich. Absolutely friggin' rich. And people wonder why other people bitch about cabalism? There you have it. If anyone tells me to back off of this one, you may as well hold your breath. This will not stand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Stand? It's already been undone. It's over. Friday (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some accountability, though. Zsinj was obviously not the only one behind this decision, but IRC doesn't have public logs to tell us who else was. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bull shit it's over. Who are the guilty parties? When are they stepping down? This is unacceptable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflictrs galore)

User:Gordon Watts. Not being privy to IRC, this is only a wild guess. Raymond Arritt

02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That had better be the issue. The timelines don't add up, though, because I was around when the Watts stuff went down. This was over a 90 minute period I wasn't at my computer - how convenient. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that this is very annoying for you Jeff, I can understand why you're pissed, but I think you need to cool off a bit. Adding that note to

WP:RfAr was a good call; just wait and see what ArbCom have to say. --Deskana (talk)

02:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So many edit conflicts, this one comes late, but I fully support Deskana. BDJ, you are furious, but let the formal dispute resolution channels to work. -- ReyBrujo 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as it works, I'll be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The IRC channel is a way for admins to communicate with some other admins. It is sometimes used to bring attention to vandals who should be blocked, pages needing attention, etc. In this way, it is used by some admins to help decide what their own individual actions to things should be. IRC discussions should never be said to result in a "consensus of admins" or anything of that sort, though. If you do something based upon discussions on IRC, you're doing so as an individual admin. - Mark 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is utterly disturbing to me. I see no specific misconduct being alleged, not even the hint of a warning on badlydrawnjeff's talk page. Somebody should get a warning themselves. I may be concerned that Jeff's getting a tad overzealous, but there is no call for the response of a block at all. I hope whoever is involved is deeply ashamed of this behavior. And while I hope Jeff is strong enough to just accept an apology for this misconduct, I can completely understand that he's probably going to be justifiably pissed at this kind of behavior. FrozenPurpleCube 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, nothing better than agreeing to block someone through IRC: nobody can defend the user, the logs can't be made public, and it makes you feel better. Mwhahaha! Now, my ear is itching... Unblock should have stated something more than "inappropriate", though. -- ReyBrujo 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, having pulled my periodically confounded senses together, I am really tempted to suggest that Zsinj is intentionally trolling to pour gasoline on the flames, but I'll AGF for the moment. Seriously, what the hell was he thinking? That explanation is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and it shows a major lack of sanity on the admin's part. How the hell could anyone not see that blocking Jeff, even (especially?) for only two hours, would just cause this disruptive chaos to continue for even longer? (And as an aside, I would really like to know what on earth possessed anyone to think this is causing permanent damage to the encyclopaedia, or how they calculated the costs and benefits of Jeff's actions. Not to mention that they seriously overestimated the portion of the community which has been wasting its time on this tripe.) Johnleemk | Talk 02:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm holding my tongue very firmly right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad decisions happen folks, no need to cry out for blood.

)

02:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if blood is your goal, then I don't know what advice to give you.

)

03:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the IRC channel where this was discussed right now, and I would like to say that, even before the discussion, there were multiple people saying that this is a really bad idea. Right now, the general feeling seems to be one of contrition, not aggression. We're not a bunch of

Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

no, the jugular's about the right place. This has been dealt with before through Arbcom. Do mistakes happen? Yes. Do mistakes happen after two hours of discussion in an unaccountable place by a bunch of people I'm not allowed to identify? No, they do not. This was not a mistake. I can forgive mistakes. I can forget mistakes. This was not a mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that any sort of reaction that involves getting rid of the admin IRC channel is probably a bad idea. Because do you know what else is an unaccountable, unloggable place with a bunch of people you can't identify? Real life discussions.

Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

03:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

as a matter policy

WP:BLOCK doesnt exclude discussion prior to a block whether it takes place here, or off site. While the discussion reached a conclusion its the responsibility of the editor who takes the action. Gnangarra

02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, he's been roundly yelled at in public, told by Tony Sidaway not to "play with his buttons while drunk", and is unlikely to make such a mistake ever again, as is anybody else who's watching. What more do you want? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a very bad decision. I'm not sure I know what should be done, and perhaps those who are saying that nothing should be done are right, but I don't think so. There are some really scarily naive admins. IRC isn't much use for sanity checking if the only people watching the scrolling text at the time aren't thinking straight. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, doing "nothing" stopped being an option about an hour ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the person responsible acknowledge their misconduct, not just get yelled at by everybody else. FrozenPurpleCube 03:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, I want names. At most, I was full accountability through Arbcom. Who knows if I'll get either, but i won't say I didn't see this coming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Names of whom? —Kyриx 03:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of who's responsible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Who? The people who discussed the possibility of the block? Only the guy who pushed the button is responsible.

)

03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, not buying that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, a good general rule is that when you try to seek "justice" at Wikipedia, things don't go your way. I've seen it happen again and again; please learn from the mistakes of others. I value your presence here too much to watch you shoot yourself in the foot. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing everything properly, don't you worry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We fucked up very badly today. I fucked up badly by not doing anything except nod my head absentmindedly. We all feel bad, and we're all sorry. Sean William 03:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are "we?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The people for whom I cannot speak for. Sean William 03:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I accept your apology on the matter, although it's still a problematic situation. Since you can't speak for the collective "we," I'll assume otherwise on the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling for blood won't be very productive at the moment, and I think we need to take a breather. I really want to know what possessed Zsinj and the IRCers who supported this move so we can determine whether this was a really bad example of a mistake made by groupthink, or whether there was an actual intent to detonate a nuke in the flaming wreck of this controversy. Then we can start determining whether we should accept an apology or call for stronger sanctions. Johnleemk | Talk 03:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No no no no! Told you shouldn't do it, Zsinj, that it was a bad bad idea. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just need to make my view celar: this block was outragous. i trust that other admins will remember this. It seems as if the use of IRC to determine blocks of established editors is probably a mistke. But wheter IRC is sued or not, a block defense of "it had been determined that the disruption caused

by that user outweighed any efforts to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia." when the "disruptuion" consists of legitmate compaints (whether anyone agrees with their substance or not) in legitimate fora for rasing such issues, is simply unaceptable. Thsi is doubly true when it is know that a number of other establisehd editors have joined in soem or all of the complaints, and that a RFC and an arbcomn case is in process. Even bans users are often unblocked during arbcom cases, to block someone for this sort of "disruption" during one shows very poor judgement on the part of the block, on the part of anyone who seriously advocated the balock, adn anywho who now defends the balock as 'not unreasonable" or the like. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Move it to ArbCom

I think it is too obvious and needs to be moved to the arbcom page where this surely belongs. Zsinj is not the sole perpetrator of course. Those who advised him to block through IRC instead of bluntly referring him to post his thoughts here for public review are responsible. Channel's sysops under whose watch this happened are responsible. This whole mess smells so familiar. It also shows vividly that the measures undertaken by ArbCom early in the year to prevent #en-admins IRC from causing further harm to this project utterly failed. --Irpen 03:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While a bad decision, let's not make this into more than it has to be. In the end, Jeff was blocked for less time that Zsinj will take just to read all the criticism he is getting. Let's get a sense of proportion. I'll be glad to add more criticism... :-) ... but don't think stronger action is called for unless the situation repeats. The best of us screw up, much as we try to avoid it. You know, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley". Hopefully we learn each time, but we are remarkably inventive in finding new ways. As long as we do learn, and it is meant in good faith, we shouldn't be flambeed for it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A longtime contributor is blocked per a discussion off Wikipedia - I don't think people are taking this out of proportion, frankly. – Riana ⁂ 03:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom is for when dispute resolution fails, I don't think it is even close to that.

)

03:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The RfC is not going to create consensus, and anyone who thinks it can patch up the disagreement between Jeff and the others is living in a dream world. This discussion here is only creating more calls for blood. I don't think mediation would be more than a temporary stanching of the wounds. No, the Arbcom has to step in now - as I already stated on RfAr, they have to clarify whether there was disruptive wheel warring, and whether the BLP policy was used correctly. I think the Arbcom is also best placed to investigate the Zsinj incident. Johnleemk | Talk 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The community process failed as the user was hit by a grievous block implemented by the members of a certain segment of this community. When a bad edit is undone, it's over. When another IRC concocted block hits us the harm cannot be undone by merely unblocking. Too obvious to even explain why. Thankfully we are getting less and less of IRC influence lately but its outcome I am sure will reduce that influence further. Jeff I am sorry this hit you. --Irpen 03:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: the block was in force for a short time, has been undone, and the user in question is able to edit. The user in question is not unaware of the controvbersy his actions and attitudes attract. The user in question does not have a clean block log, which some people prize and would be disappointed to lose. Right now I find it hard to see what irreperable damage has been done. This is no different to a block "concocted" on ANI, other than that the log is not publicly visible. There are blocks "concocted" on irc all the time, most of them are comletely uncontroversial and nobody ever knows they were "concocted" on irc - and there are blocks which are averted by irc as well. The irc channel is not some monstrous entity, it is just folks. I have only very recently subscribed to the irc channel, I find that, far from there being a cabal of some sort, there is a lot of sense. David Gerard, for example, is usually about and far from reluctant to point out when one is being an idiot, which helps save face and reduce controversy in the public forums. As with any place where groups of people gather together, sometimes there can be misunderstanding, sometimes there can be a mob, sometimes there can be a collective bad call, but mostly - really, mostly - what you get is a better and more reasoned result than an admin relying solely on their own judgement. Try it some time. I was sceptical, but I am a convert. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get what IRC has to do with it. I was there the whole time while this was going down. Guess what, in the end it came to Zsinj's actions, nobody elses. Calling for everyone else's blood is completely irresponsible and shows that anger and emotions rather than reason and rational thinking are in use here. There were ....something like 60 users there. Gonna desysop them all? That's ridiculous. Take your anger out on Zsinj, keep it away from the rest of us. And honestly Jeff, one of the reasons that Zsinj blocked you was due to threats. While I can understand your anger, threatening statements like "If anyone tells me to back off of this one, you may as well hold your breath. This will not stand." are not helpful at all. This will be my only statement on this, if you want an answer from me ask me on my talk, I'm not going to check this here, this page is going to get too long.

Clarify: Out of the 60 or so users, maybe 10 of them were active. Don't condemn the rest of them for simply being there.

^{Denny Crane.}

03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If a statement of commitment to an issue is taken as a threat, I'd say that's the problem of the person reading it. Jeff's entitled to the same righteous zeal as anybody else. Given that there's no threat of explicit disruptive action or harm to another user, the best thing to do is not to overreact to it. The worst thing to do is something like a block. That will guarantee the issue will continue to be a concern, and if anything get worse. I feel (and I worry), that Jeff's probably taken this ill-guided act as vindication. FrozenPurpleCube 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and IRC is an issue because that's where the blocking admin said he decided to make the block. That's a problem, and reflects a bad decision making process on the part of the blocking admin, who I hope owns up to the mistake. FrozenPurpleCube 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. When someone presses an admin button, the responsibility is primarily theirs. That ensures that admin actions are done with the most contemplation. Future blockers should not be able to claim "I did it because X, Y, and Z told me too", because that's a lame cop-out. If an admin can't properly decide whether other people's advice is good or bad, then adminship may not be the best thing for them. --

Interiot

04:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Veinor nailed it: many of us told Zsinj that it was a bad idea, I didn't believe however he would go and actually do it. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to second this, I specifically warned against

Need help?

04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am having a hard time resisting the urge to revoke Zsinj's access to the admin's channel; his actions indicate that he lacks the necessary judgment to be a participant in that forum. Might not be a bad idea to revoke it for a time, or something, but then again, I don't really care that much. (Not to mention I haven't been in the admin's channel in weeks.) Kelly Martin (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This WTF moment is brought to you by: IRC. Internet Relay Chat: The cabal's playground for over two years. Internet Relay Chat. Expect less.

masterka

04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... am I missing something here? We didn't accidentally execute BDJ. Instead, he was blocked. Wrongfully. He was unblocked. Rightfully. Zsinj was wrong. Okay... duly noted. There's no need to prepare a report to bring before the UN. -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue people are bringing up is that it's part of a larger problem with admins deciding things badly on IRC. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but that's the concern. -Amarkov moo! 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that (and, just for the record, I don't use IRC). However, there's no need for the same Zsinj was a dum-dum argument to be repeated over and over again. That is, unless we're trying to make

WP:400 (in which case: fire away). I have no idea how to punctuate that last sentence. -- tariqabjotu

04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Zsinj blocked him, others were (allegedly) dumb enough to think he might be able to get away with it. Without the logs, I can't fault anyone but Zsinj (and maybe not even after reviewing the logs.)

masterka

04:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Without the logs, I can't fault anyone but Zsinj. It's okay; BDJ is going to bring everyone responsible to justice Jack Bauer style. Soon enough. -- tariqabjotu 05:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Superman wears badlydrawnjeff pajamas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the ArbCom case include those in IRC? And there was only one notification reported. (SEWilco 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Depends. I'd expect anybody who has the logs to at least provide them so they can look through them and observe anybody's misconduct. As far as I'm concerned, this is hopefully just one person's mistake, and while they should account for it, from what I know right now, I'd be satisfied with just an acknowledgment of the mistake. I sincerely hope no more than that is needed. FrozenPurpleCube 05:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nearly 50% of the users in IRC channels are idling at any given time. I can say that I was in the channel, but I was not actively participating in the discussion at the time. There is no reason to include 50 people in any sort of arbitration case (if one gets accepted) when maybe 2 or 3 are at fault.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Providing logs is a violation of freenode.net policy, Wikipedia IRC channels policy, and that specific IRC channels policy. There may be even bigger restrictions on the disclosure of recorded material from a private IRC channel. There was a big stink about someone leaking logs a few days ago. Releasing logs is out of the question. I should know, I got in big trouble over IRC logs, so big it sunk my first RFA.

^{Denny Crane.}

07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Providing logs to the public is a violation of various policies. Logs have been mailed privately to the arbcom in the past, and in all likelihood, that'll happen again in the future. --

Interiot

08:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I am not going to say too much here because I don't think it will help, but here goes anyway. Jeff is not evil. I repeat: Jeff is not evil. He is a likeable guy who actually does want to help build the encyclopaedia, and has done a lot of work to that end. Blocking him should be a matter of long deliberation, however vexatious he may occasionally be, and that deliberation should take place here. There are other ways of halting a problem Jeff is causing, he is not (completely) immune to reason even when in the grip of one of his occasional crusades. I don't mind the cabal (TINC) getting together on irc to get together a posse to run a bandit out of town, and I'll likely be right at the front, but not for Jeff, I really do think he's earned better than that. Having said which, as my comments on the RFAR make clear, I do think Jeff has a problem right now. Quite a serious one. His vision of Wikipedia is distinctly off the community's midpoint, and he seems to be trying to change this in the wrong way, with the result that he has made many enemies and lost some friends. Time to take a deep breath, see if the RFAR case is accepted and if not then start an RfC. I think that Jeff may be persuaded, with patience, to adopt a different and more helpful approach. I don't think we need to run him out of town just yet. But we do need to at least start the process before things get any worse. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for f(*beep*)k's sake, you don't block people just because a cabal of 5 or whatever are whinging on IRC. When will various people get in into their heads that IDONTLIKEHIM is not a fu(*bleep!*)ng well valid reason to block anyone, especially not established contributors, especially not just because some people are in a bad mood and taking their frustrations out on IRC. Will the block stick? No. Will wikidrama be prevented? No. Will it cause more? Yes? Will the encyclopedia benefit? No. We've all been here before.

Some people seriously need to start thinking with their brains and not with their fu(*beep*)ng d(*bleep!*)cks. Please do not confuse your admin tools with your penis. Moreschi ^Talk 09:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

All that hostility, and whose dicks? What cabal was there? Where you actually there to see what happened? Of course you weren't because if you were, you'd know that there was no "cabal of 5 or whatever", it was a handful of people for, a handful of people against, and more than 75% of the channel not even paying attention.

^{Denny Crane.}

10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, have you not been reading the various discussions regarding Jeff lately? See

WP:RFAR, where one arb. opiones as follows: If, indeed, he's announced his contempt for community and consensus and policy as stated above ("meteors" and "heaven"), the community can provide those meteors. I think blocking Jeff was wrong, and I think the irc cabal should have said no, but there is no doubt that Jeff has been, and promises to continue being, disruptive. So: a bad call by one admin, but not an indefensibly bad call, and not capricious, just ill-judged. I suspect he has learned his lesson. If the bogeyman of irc had not been named then we'd probably not even have this thread. Guy (Help!

) 10:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? No, I wasn't there at the time, and agreed it's one admin's call, and what I said still stands, even if you do remove my profanity. Jeff is not a troll. As such, we can talk to him, not block him. IRC or no, this is so stupid. We probably don't need to desysop anyone, but some people need to consider what they're doing here. This is not a power game. IRC maybe irrelevant here, maybe not. Jeff probably is being disruptive: talk to him, don't block him. The two are mutually exclusive. We need to act in an adult manner, not one based on playground notions of eyes for eyes. This block reeks of puerility.

Oh, I'm frustrated, but we've effing been here before. When will people learn? The lessons are not difficult ones. Block the trolls and talk to the regulars. How hard is that? Moreschi ^Talk 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Community sentiment re IRC blocks is starkly clear, and has been for some time. The trouble is that this has not been heeded. Clue: it will never be heeded, and frankly doesn't deserve to be heeded, if it is not accompanied by action at some point or another.Proabivouac 10:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not an irc block. Clear? Everybody who hangs out on irc and has ventured an opinion here, has expressed the view that this was misguided, a bad call. And that's all it was: one bad call by one admin. That, and nothing else. If you want to use this as an excuse to prevent admins from using irc to blow off steam, feel free, but all you will do is (a) move it elsewhere or (b) icrease the burnout rate. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I or anyone else be clear on that, when the logs are not released? Zsinj claimed it was based on consensus on IRC, you say it's not. That's all the rest of us know. Are you saying that Zsinj completely fabricated this claim? I doubt it.Proabivouac 11:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So what happened to

AGF? Is there any evidence that Zsinj et al acted in bad faith? No? Then why assume bad faith? You have to also bear in mind that how people perceive things is very different. Zsinj may have thought there was consensus when there was none; it's not an impossible or even unlikely mistake. Johnleemk | Talk

12:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

JzG, try to get your hands on the logs. Seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Let's stick a fork in this once and for all - I have not been disruptive. Disruptive is not attempting to get an article undeleted. Disruptive is not reversing the improper closure of a deletion discussion. Disruptive is not "well, a bunch of people who don't like BDJ for a variety of reasons think so." This is a classic case of "keep repeating it, and it becomes true," and it's not. so, unless you have some good evidence that I've been disruptive, because I'm very careful not to be, I suggest people stop saying as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not been disruptive - Since the issue isn't a question of what's going on inside your head but rather its effect on other people and interactions outside of it, allow me to say that "because I said so" is less than convincing.

This is a classic case of "keep repeating it, and it becomes true,"..."" - speaking of which. Also which, it's a pretty good pocket description of your general plans of action -- keep pounding away trying to get your way -- especially in the present case.

...unless you have some good evidence that I've been disruptive... - I'd say that multiple AFDs and DRVs, two runs at ArbCom, multiple insults aimed at people who have the temerity to oppose you, attempted end-runs around policy and the process you say you value so much -- and spare me the spin as to why it's justified or it's really different for you -- is prima facie evidence of disruption, however much of whatever point you seem to be trying make. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, Calton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since your "point" bears not the slightest resemblance to anything I wrote -- or that much of a resemblance to "consensus reality", as they used to say in the 70s -- that particular rhetorical disconnect is even less convincing than your previous "because I said so" rationale. --Calton | Talk 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is completely unacceptable. While I disagree with the direction in which Badlydrawnjeff would like to take Wikipedia, at this point IRC > block is just about all I need to know. Blocks should not be discussed and decided on IRC. Per JzG's comments above, the point isn't that the culture of IRC is reasonable or unreasonable, but that it is by design immune to scrutiny. There is strong community consensus for this principle, and strong action is warranted to uphold it.Proabivouac 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

please see JzG's comments

^{Denny Crane.}

10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict, you obviously have.

^{Denny Crane.}

10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a particular variety of foolishness that is expressly unwelcome on -admins, per rules on

WP:WEA and past problems - it's one thing to come to -admins for sanity checking your urge to block someone, it's quite another not to flag it here afterwards! I'll try to have a word with the guy and see what on Earth he was thinking. My apologies to all, and especially Jeff - David Gerard

10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. ignore this as water under the bridge
2. give Zsinj a stern talking too - i.e. do NOT do this again
3. move to get him/her sanctioned by ArbCom - i.e. some sort of official censure, probation or desysopping

I don't know any of the parties involved here, but this seems like such a horrendously bad decision that I am well beyond #1 into #2 (the discussion above will pass for "stern talking to" already) and tending to #3. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"An eye for an eye" is inappropriate here: there is no need for any particular sanction on Zsinj, or a block as he'd blocked BDJ, but merely the preventative measure of desysoping, to ensure that he will not do this again. I propose a motion to desysop on

WP:CSN. If we the community can ban an editor (presumably this at least in principle includes administrators?), then why can we not desysop? If adminship is truly no big deal, then taking it away isn't a big deal either.Proabivouac

10:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom should be for problems that the community fails to solve after exhustive discussion, are we really that feeble that we have to run off crying to arbcom at this stage? --Fredrick day 10:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And are we really so unforgiving that we can't let an admin make a tit of himself even once without calling for the tar and feathers? Guy (Help!) 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, JzG, I'm not calling for

tar and feathers, I'm calling for desysopping. Not a block, not a censure, not a ban. I'm not an administrator: am I tarred and feathered? Most editors aren't admins: are we in a state of disgrace? Following the premises underlying your sympathetic post, so one must conclude. A non-adminstrator is an editor in good standing, and that is exactly what Zsinj has every right to be. He's abused the block tool at another's expense, so it should be (at least for now) taken away. No punishment, no hard feelings, just prevention.Proabivouac

10:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes unless this is part of an established pattern of behaviour - then a single block in error is frankly not a big deal (I'll qualify that by saying conversations on IRC should not be the basis of blocks). --Fredrick day 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't play it down too much: this is a big deal, as it shows a serious error in judgement from an administrator. I'm not saying a desysopping is necessary, but this was an incredibly bad idea. Jeff's net effect on the project is (in my eyes) overwhelmingly positive. Trebor 10:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't block you if you fuck up once, so there's no real point to desysoping if you fuck up once. It only creates a huge incentive to refrain from doing anything lest it be wrong and you end up losing the tools. Some people would obviously prefer this situation, but since the rest of us are humans and do make mistakes, I find a "one strike, you're out" policy quite disturbing. Oh yeah, and community desysopings generally do not occur because of the risk of lynch mobbery; desysopings normally occur under an Arbcom order or via a steward decision based on some extraordinary incident (e.g. real rougery). Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It was an incredibly bone-headed move, but as long as there's no damage -- temporary or permanent -- and Zsinj recognizes it as flat wrong, the whacking he's been getting here from everyone should be punishment enough. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Badlydrawnjeff blocked, unblocked: arbitrary section break

When I cussed out Zsinji on the channel last night (after waking up from my nap), I warned him that this was the exact sequence of events that would take place, although the virulence of the some of the comments above still staggers me. You'd never know from reading above that everybody commenting agrees that the block was a bad idea. You're not going to get Zsinji's head on a pike for one bad block. You all know better than that. I would hope he's learned from the experience, and per Kelly Martin revocation of access to the admin channel might be a sensible step. It has said at

If I were to make an apology to Jeff and to the rest of the community, where would be the best place for it? I am willing to throw myself to the mercy of the community and I recognize I made a hasty decision without knowing all the facts. Thanks. Zsinj^Talk 11:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, does it? Here's as good as anywhere. Trebor 11:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think some of the stuff said here - by me not least, even with Phaedriel adding bleeps - will serve as admonition enough. A pointless desysopping will serve no purpose. Just this once, we can say "Never again" and forgive and forget, and maybe kick from #wikipedia-en-admins (note: that channel is not Requests for Blocking). Clemency is the virtue of the great. Moreschi ^Talk 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Zsinj. What I would like to see is your and everyone else's support for the notion that any admin who in the future blocks based upon an IRC discussion or encourages others to block on IRC should be immediately desysoped. The clearer we make this, the less likely it is that another well-meaning admin will find him or herself in your position: it is ultimately the community's responsibility for not making this crystal clear. Obviously you weren't aware of how much controversy this would engender, which is proof that the message wasn't clear. So let's make it clear now and call it a day.Proabivouac 11:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is stupid. IRC can be used to doublecheck whether an account should be blocked indefinitely as troll-only, for example, or to discuss whether a user looks like a sock. There can be useful and good blocks based on IRC discussion. Blocking long-term contributors for disruption is likely not going to help no matter where it is debated. Kusma (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So if I were to delete an image as "replacable fairuse" when it was in fact not replaceable, should I be desysoped too? Your rationale sounds more like a personal vendetta than a solution to this one incident. Zsinj^Talk 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight...admins are not human and should not be given any leeway to be human and make mistakes? And you believe the encyclopaedia can run smoothly like this? If this were the case, I'd stop making decisions on anything remotely possibly controversial, and so would many other admins. It's one thing to hold admins to a higher standard than editors - that's only sensible because they have more tools. But it's a completely different thing to hold them to an inhuman standard. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of the feedback this suggestion has received, I have to think that I overreacted. Nothing personal here at all, Zsinj.Proabivouac 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. :-) Zsinj^Talk 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the right thing for this is an RFC. I'd also recommend it be focused. There really are 3 issues (IMHO) that are being addressed:

1. What are the facts of the case. That is what specifically happened that led to the mistake and how can it be avoided in the future? -- It appears that is getting resolved.
2. What should happen to Zsinj? There seem to be a few people who feel that the act was stupid enough to carry serious consequences in and of itself (like the old policy regarding legal threats). Others people feel that getting insulted 2 dozen times on AN/I plus an apology is probably enough punishment for what was a momentary lapse of judgment.
3. What is the appropriate role of IRC?

-- This issue is very serious. I think its time to open this 3rd question up fully. People on a regular basis are being attacked based on IRC. It has become a very destructive influence (it may always have been so). A broad IRC guideline should be created which indicates what sorts of activities are acceptable. For example

• getting advice on how to handle issues seems to be useful.
• Instant moderation on IRC has had a positive effect (though people should never be pressured into using IRC)
• Coordination against vandals seems to be useful
• Coordinating attacks off wiki against long time users because of policy / content disagreements should be banned absolutely and completely. And this has been regular behavior of many long standing administrators. And that is what IMHO is generating the anger at Zsinj (who AFAIK has never done this before).

jbolden1517^Talk 14:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This will be crossposted to the RFAR as my comment on the matter:

To Badlydrawnjeff, members of -admins, fellow administrators, and to the community as a whole:

My actions last night are the result of trying to play the devil's advocate which resulted in an administrative action. For approximately two hours, I asked questions about the issue with the Jeff and in responce I received the impression that Jeff was doing more harm than good. Some voiced frustration about how the situation was becoming lenghty and filled with drama. However, realizing that this all took place in an internet chat room, and a private one no less, that those individuals have nothing to do with the action that only I committed.

I recognize that the decision to block the user was a relatively hasty and uninformed one. Part of the decision was based upon ending the frustration of my peers and trying to get the involved parties to calm down. Through two RFARs and an RFC, I did not see the discussion reaching any compromises and by myself decided to take the action I did. While I did ask for assistance in wording, the block length and reason are my original thinking. 60 hours would have been Friday and I would have hoped people would have been able to think rationally without Jeff breathing down their necks (figuratively) during that time.

In my opinion, last night I made one block that was clearly not in the community's interest. I have seen proposed consequences of my actions range from nothing and a "stern talking to" to desysopping via CSN. While my opinion on the consequences would be clearly biased, I would like to make it known that there are people out there who are asking for blood, while others are being more rational and realizing that I am not the person to go on an inappropriate blocking spree. Up until the block last night, I stuck mainly to CSD backlogs and the occasional blocking fo vandals (which I noticed on *gasp IRC). If my efforts are not welcome by the community, I will acknowledge that. If it can be seen that I cannot improve, I will disagree, but I am at the mercy of the community and the decisions they make. Zsinj^Talk 11:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think that you would do the block. Most, if not all, of my comments to the discussion on IRC were in jest, or only partially serious. It up the community to decide if those in the channel are responsible as well, though; I could have stopped it if I was thinking. Sean William 12:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I will gladly release everything I said into the channel last night. Regarding privacy concerns, I said I would release what I said. If others feel like doing the same, that is up to them. Zsinj^Talk 12:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• We need the names and logs of all involved in the shameful episode. No "ifs and buts" just the names and the logs. Now. The need to be published openly on WP ANI for everyone to see what is going on.
  Giano
  12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be against established protocol. I will not make any more potentially controversial actions as a result of this. Zsinj^Talk 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

and how do you plan to get this information? with a time machine? or by breaching the T&Cs of service on freenode and the channel ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs)

• You've got the name of the person who blocked. He has taken responsibility for his actions, as he should. What you're really asking for is a list of persons who muttered, at some point, that they thought Badlydrawnjeff ought to be blocked. What, exactly, do you intend to do with this list? Of what value could it possibly be? If there's something worth arbitrating the arbs will get the logs privately, as with all private communications. We've been over this before. Mackensen (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Anyone who actually believes that IRC (unencrypted, untrusted server-web arcitecture) communications are "private communications," is wrong. I noticed that the channel's documentation page here gave poor information regarding this alleged "privacy." I have corrected this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Obviously it's insecure, but then so is email. It's private in the sense that it is not a communication meant for public consumption, that's all (and, furthermore, one whose publication is prohibited by the host). Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The prohibitions against logging / publication are neither legally nor morally enforcable in this case. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see, the argument is that people on IRC have a right to privacy. If anything, that lack of transparency makes the idea of using IRC for anything of this nature even more disturbing. Secret courts and hidden evidence are the sort of thing that makes for trouble and conflict. Certainly there are things which should be kept private. This is not one of them. I admonish *anybody* thinking of using IRC for dealing with problems of anything but the most routine and unambiguous nature to not do so. It's unhealthy for Wikipedia. And yes, I know it's fundamentally impossible to stop people from talking off Wiki about whatever they want. I do not suggest any proscriptive action. I merely advise all admins that the best way to do things is upfront and open to the public. To do otherwise risks creating an atmosphere that causes problems, not solves them. FrozenPurpleCube 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why people are encouraged to justify blocks on-wiki. You'll notice the chorus of administrators denouncing what happened. This kind of screw-up makes everybody look bad. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A list of people who were aware of block but did not take action to correct it would be easily determined from a log. I missed the part in our privacy policy that allowed any-given-adminstrator access to non-public information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be laboring under a fundamental misapprehension. The policy is freenode's, not ours, and applies to all channels, not just that one. This isn't a question of administrators vs. non-administrators. As to your first point, I'm not sure what action could be taken prior to the block, other than stated disagreement, and afterwards there was indignation followed by a prompt unblock. You seem to wish to penalize people for thinking a block was a good idea. What about people who voiced support on-wiki? Do we punish them to? Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We have no obligation to assist in freenodes enforcement of their policies. Specifically, the posting of such logs to wikipedia where appropriate is appropriate, and (currently) is not prohibited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all those who were present on the freenode channel, do have an obligation to conform to freenode's policies. If this means no public dissemination of channel logs, then they must not publicly disseminate channel logs. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Freenode's policies are located at this page and do not mention any prohibition on logging whatsoever. Beyond that, a user of the irc network is not required at any time to affix a signature, digital or otherwise, to said policies. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Jeff seems to have already seen the logs, my point may be moot, but whatever the policies are of freenode or WP,

doing the right thing should take precedent. daveh4h

15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There's agreeing with a block, and then there's egging someone on to do the block, up to and including assisting with the wording of the blocking statement. The former is simply opinion, and you can't go after someone for uneducated or ignorant opinion, but the latter is just as bad as pulling the trigger, if not worse if you're trying to get someone else to do the dirty work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that to a point, but ultimately we have to expect that our adminstrators are capable of independent judgement. I can't speak to the direct circumstances--I wasn't active, nor was the conversation in my scrollback. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite your (Jeff's) own opinion, I was not forced to take out the laundry or to do another person's dirty work or anything like that. I asked questions. I made my own opinion (here's where it started) and took action (here's where it ended). Please do not join the crowd of people who are assuming without first having evidence to back up your claim. Asking for more than one bird to be hit with your stone is simply trying to do as much damage as possible before the ArbCom case is concluded. Zsinj^Talk 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue, of course, is that I have the evidence. Yes, you asked questions, and yes, you made your own opinion based on those questions. I'm also convinced, seeing the flow of the discussion, that you were played very, very hard. Which is unfortunate. You don't need to try and be the fall guy here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your seemingly sympathetic concerns are making me go back and look at the conversation myself. Perhaps my opinion will change once I have reread it. Thank you. Zsinj^Talk 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given I haven't set up mIRC to log since I got my new computer, can someone email the log to me? Thanks. :( Zsinj^Talk 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a matter of me getting home later than usual from class and seeing what was up on IRC. There was no secret evidence. There was no secret court. There is no cabal (seriously) and even if there were, I wouldn't be a part of it. IRC is a place I go to see how people are doing and to have lively discussions about whatever. When people make IRC a mystical secret court with secret rules and evidence, they are creating a dream world for the justification of their attack. I had decided I was not going to return to the channel before Mackensen removed my ability to do so. Zsinj^Talk 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The block was wrong. The unblock was right. Zsinj has already apologized. This is w/o precedent. The case is already being discussed and dealt w/ at the related ArbCom case. Can we please close this thread and if you like open [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Decisions and blocks based on IRC discussions are BAD and should be immediately be reverted and sanctioned]? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this can be closed. The only comments still coming in are from people just piling on the "This block was bad! Zsinj is bad!" comments. Put a link to the ArbCom case up at the top and let this get archived. Zsinj^Talk 16:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again the community (that's you) has proven that it is incapable of doing anything productive, but is instead willing to take a shit on other people whenever something "bad" happens. Nice job, guys. Conservapedia could use few more idiots like yourselves. -Pilotguy hold short 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And where is Giano when you need him? He digs stuff like this. Oh well, he's brianwashed and told you enough bedtime stories about IRC enough as it is already. Kudos. -Pilotguy hold short 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to be

civil, even when discussing difficult issues. Thank you. --BigDT

17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)